^\n 


\V< 


REESE   LIBRARY 


OF   THE 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA.    I 


WAR  16  1893       ,  189 
..  5~0  llll.      Class  No...3/.jb.. 


1 — u — ujf^^l■^^J^■#■  i^v — u — u— 1 


THE    PAPACY 


AND 


THE    CIYIL  POWEE. 


BY 


K.  W.  THOMPSON. 


"Popery  is  a  double  thing  to  deal  with,  and  claims  a  twofold  power,  ecclesiastical 
and  political,  both  usui-ped,  and  the  one  supporting  the  other."— Joun  Milton. 

"  There  was  no  usurpation  so  great  as  that  of  the  Romans,  who  usurped  the  Em- 
pire; neither  do  I  exempt  from  this  rule  the  priesthood,  whose  violence  is  double, 
inasmuch  as  it  is  doubled  in  holding  men  under  corporeal  and  under  spiritual 
authority."— Fk.vncis  Guicciaruini. 


NEW    YOEK: 
HARPER    &    BROTHERS,  PUBLISHERS, 

FRANKLIN     SQUARE. 


^o/>x 


7 


4 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  187G,  by 

Harper   &   Brothers, 

In  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Wasliington. 


PREFACE. 


It  has  seemed  to  me,  for  a  long  time,  that  it  was  the 
duty  of  the  people  of  the  United  States  to  make  themselves 
familiar  with  the  history  of  the  papacy,  its  relations  to 
tlio  civil  power,  and  its  attempted  encroachments  upon  the 
rights  of  existing  governments.  This  conviction  caused  me 
to  enter  upon  the  investigations  which  have  resulted  in  the 
preparation  of  this  volume — mainly  for  self-edification  ;  and 
if  the  conclusions  I  have  r^ched  are  not  satisfactory  to  oth- 
ers, I  shall  be  content  if  they  are  stimulated  to  make  like  in- 
vestigations for  themselves. 

Having  begun  and  prosecuted  my  labors  from  the  Prot- 
estant stand-point,  I  am  aware  that  the  partisan  defenders 
of  the  papacy  and  its  enormous  pretensions  will  assign  ev- 
ery thing  I  have  stated,  whether  of  fact  or  opinion,  to  the 
force  of  habit  and  prejudice  of  education.  This  prejudice 
is  undoubtedly  strong  in  all  minds;  and,  struggle  against 
them  as  we  may,  we  are  all  apt  to  be  influenced,  more  or 
less,  by  the  current  opinions  prevailing  among  those  with 
whom  we  habitually  associate.  But  as  I  have  not  under- 
taken to  discuss  mere  points  of  religious  doctrine,  or  to  treat 
of  the  dogmas  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  except  in  so 
far  as  they  have  been  employed  to  influence  the  civil  policy 
and  action  of  governments,  I  am  unwilling  to  concede  my- 
self less  able  to  discover  and  declare  the  truth  in  reference 
to  them  than  is  a  Roman  Catholic  to  understand  and  de- 
scribe the  true  character  and  tendencies  of  Protestantism. 

In  the  claim  of  impartiality  and  fairness  in  all  such  mat- 
ters, the  advantage  is  on  the  side  of  the  Protestant.  Ro- 
man Catholic  writers  are  led,  almost  universally,  by  the 
very  nature  of  their  church  organization,  into  intolerance 
and  dogmatism.     They  are  always  ready  to  assume,  with- 


4  PREFACE. 

out  investigation  or  inquiry,  that  whatsoever  the  papacy- 
has  done  or  taught  from  the  beginning  is  unerringly  right 
and  true.     They  do  not  employ  their  individual  reason  or 
i  judgment  to   examine  for  themselves,  but  are   content  to 
I  accept  whatsoever  is  announced  by  ecclesiastical  authority. 
I  Since  the  recent  decree  of  the  pope's  infallibility,  this  au- 
I   thority  is  all  centred  in  him.     He  is  made  incapable  of  er- 
ror in  all  that  he  has  declared,  or  shall  hereafter  declare,  in 
the  domain  of  faith  and  morals ;  and  every  member  of  the 
Church  wins  equal  infallibility  for  himself  only  by  the  ac- 
ceptance and  promulgation  of  this  doctrine. 

Not  so  with  the  Protestant.  He  appeals  to  reason ;  ex- 
amines history  for  himself;  weighs  both  evidence  and  argu- 
ment; and  exercises  his  own  intelligent  judgment  in  sepa- 
rating right  from  wrong,  truth  from  falsehood.  While  the 
papacy  demands  implicit  and  passive  obedience — the  entire 
submission  of  the  whole  man,  by^the  sacrifice  of  all  his  sense 
of  personality — Protestantism  encourages  and  develops  this 
sense  by  treating  every  individual  as  endowed  with  the  fac- 
ulty of  reason,  and  as  possessing  the  right  to  employ  it  for 
himself.  Manifestly,  he  who  does  not  do  it  is  mere  "  clay 
in  the  hands  of  the  potter." 

I  have  endeavored  to  obtain  the  information  upon  which 
my  conclusions  are  based,  without  concerning  myself  about 
matters  of  religious  faith,  any  further  than  as  I  have  found 
religion  and  politics  mixed  up  together;  and. then  only  to 
the  extent  of  ascertaining  how  far  the  world  has  been  influ- 
enced by  the  union  of  Church  and  State,  and  what  the  prob- 
able effect  upon  mankind  would  be  if  that  union  should 
again  become  general  and  universal.  My  toleration  toward 
even  the  most  violent  and  vindictive  assailants  of  Protest- 
antism is  such  as  forbids  that  I  should  challenge  the  integ- 
rity of  their  motives,  or  the  sincerity  of  their  convictions. 
I  will  not  quarrel  with  them  about  their  religious  opinions. 
These  are  to  be  judged  of  by  an  Authority  far  higher  than 
any  eartlily  tribunal — at  the  final  bar,  where  we  shall  all 
meet — and  by  a  Judge  to  whose  sentence,  whether  of  ap- 
proval or  condemnation,  every  one  of  us  must  submit.  It 
is  far  more  agreeable  to  me  to  concede,  as  I  readily  and 
cheerfully  do,  that  there  is  much  in  the  antiquity  and  his- 


PREFACE.  6 

tory  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  to  enlist  our  admiration 
— much  that  has  benefited  the  world  by  the  dissemination 
of  orood  and  benio^nant  influences.  But  if  I  have  found  in 
Protestantism,  as  it  exists  in  the  United  States  under  the 
shelter  of  our  popular  institutions,  that  which  has  dissemi- 
nated these  same  influences  in  a  far  greater  degree;  that 
which  has  done  more  to  improve,  advance,  and  elevate  the 
world ;  and  that  which,  on  these  accounts,  is  to  be  preferred, 
it  will  be  found  to  be  because  papal  imperialism^  origina- 
ting in  worldly  motives  and  founded  upon  temporal  ambi- 
tion, has  led  this  grand  old  church,  by  means  of  an  external 
ecclesiastical  organization,  far  away  from  its  original  apos. 
tolic  simplicity  and  purity. 

Such  are  my  habits  of  thought — possibly  from  professional 
training — that  I  have  taken  but  little  for  granted  ;  but,  in 
order  to  exercise  an  intelligent  judgment  as  far  as  possible, 
have  examined  and  w^eighed  all  the  evidence  within  my 
reach,  as  I  would  that  bearing  upon  any  controverted  point 
about  which  I  can  have  no  personal  information.  It  is  no 
easy  matter  to  separate  the  true  from  the  false  in  history, 
either  secular  or  ecclesiastical.  It  requires  the  most  careful 
and  searching  examination  of  authorities,  often  in  conflict 
with  each  other,  and  sometimes  with  themselves.  It  is  not 
safe  to  accept  all  that  is  recorded  as  true,  or  to  reject  it 
as  filse.  Nor  should  that  degree  of  moral  evidence  whicli 
amounts  to  positive  demonstration  be  required.  We  should 
be  satisfied  with  such  proof  as  establishes  the  reasonable 
probability  of  any  given  statement  of  facts.  The  degree  of 
evidence  necessary  to  establish  a  fact,  is,  in  a  great  measure, 
influenced  by  the  nature  of  the  fact  itself— always  involving 
the  preliminary  inquiry  whether  it  is  appropriate  or  inap- 
propriate to  it.  Evidence  is  of  but  little  value  unless  it 
satisfies  the  mind  and  conscience.  A  reasonable  man  will 
require  nothing  more,  and  should  be  satisfied  with  nothing 
less.  The  difliculties  in  relation  to  the  rules  of  evidence  are 
greater  or  less,  according  to  the  naturo  of  our  experience 
and  observation  of  human  afiairs,  and  our  comprehension  of 
the  motives  of  men  and  societies.  Our  common  sense  is  the 
best  and  safest  guide,  because  it  is  not  likely  to  lead  us  into 
those  obscure  and  difiicult  paths  where  men'  are  so  often 


6  PREFACE. 

and  so  unprofitably  carried  by  mere  scholastic  learning,  and 
from  which  they  can  not  extricate  themselves  without  the 
assistance  of  those  who  designedly  conduct  them  there. 

There  are  many  things  entitled  to  be  recognized  without 
proof.  Every  thing  which  partakes  of  the  nature  of  a  pub- 
lic act ;  general  laws  and  customs ;  matters  which  concern 
a  whole  people,  or  the  government  of  a  country ;  and  such 
things  as  would  naturally  happen  in  the  ordinary  course  of 
events — are  all  of  this  character.  To  reject  these  would  be 
to  remove  all  the  foundations  and  landmarks  of  history. 

It  should  not  be  forgotten  that,  in  the  investigation  of 
events  far  removed  from  our  own  time,  we  are  compelled  to 
acquire  information  of  them  only  through  the  perception  of 
otherSj  and  not  our  own.  In  reference  to  such  events,  cred- 
ulous minds  are  too  apt  to  give  implicit  credit  to  whatso- 
ever is  recorded  ;  incredulous  minds,  too  apt  to  reject  it.  To 
avoid  these  extremes,  we  should  keep  our  minds  in  an  even- 
ly balanced  condition — without  inclining  either  to  the  side 
of  belief  or  disbelief — so  that  when  all  the  evidence  access- 
ible to  us  shall  be  applied,  we  may  allow  the  scale  to  pre- 
ponderate on  that  side  where  the  most  reasonable  proba- 
bility lies ;  that  is,  where  the  result  is  consistent  with  the 
knowledge  of  facts  already  known  to  us. 

These  are  recognized  and  well-established  rules  of  evi- 
dence. They  govern  us  in  our  ordinary  intercourse  with 
the  world.  And  as  they  have  guided  me  throughout  my 
investigations,  I  have  deemed  it  proper  to  state  them,  that 
others  may  understand  the  process  of  my  reasoning,  and  be 
able  to  test  the  accuracy  of  my  conclusions.  These  investi- 
gations having  been  prosecuted  when  all  the  circumstances 
connected  with  the  present  demands  of  the  papacy  are  cal- 
culated to  impress  my  mind  with  their  magnitude  and  im- 
portance, I  have  endeavored  to  divest  myself  of  all  undue 
and  improper  prejudice,  and  to  conduct  them  in  the  spirit 
of  toleration  and  with  all  reasonable  impartiality.  I  hope  I 
have  succeeded  in  this,  because  I  have  no  wush  to  convey  to 
the  minds  of  others  any  belief  or  impressions  except  such 
as  may  meet  the  approval  of  their  own  reason  and  judg- 
ment. That  I  may  have  erred  in  admitting  or  rejecting  evi- 
dence, in  giving  too  great  or  too  little  weiorht  to  it  when 


PREFACE.  7 

received,  or  may  have  reached  improper  and  unwarrant- 
able conchisions,  is  altogether  probable ;  for,  unlike  the  sup- 
porters of  the  papacy,  I  lay  no  claim  to  infallibility,  or  even 
to  exemption  from  ordinary  frailty.  This  is  all  I  claim: 
that  I  have  endeavored  to  be  candid,  and  to  state  the  con- 
victions of  my  mind  as  inoffensively  as  possible;  being  con- 
tent that  others  shall  decide  for  themselves  how  far  they 
are  right  and  how  far  wrong. 

Daring  the  celebrated  controversy  between  Dr.  Brecken- 
ridge  and  Archbishop  Hughes,  some  years  ago,  the  former 
had  occasion  to  make  a  quotation  from  the  catechism  of  the 
Council  of  Trent ;  and  not  having  the  original  before  him, 
took  it  from  the  works  of  Archbishop  Usher,  one  of  the 
most  learned  and  extensively  known  of  the  English  divines. 
Making  no  immediate  question  about  the  correctness  of  the 
quotation.  Archbishop  Hughes  thus,  in  a  seemingly  supercili- 
ous air,  evaded  the  matter :  "  Who  this  Usher  is,"  said  he, 
"  I  am  at  a  loss  to  conjecture.  There  is  an  author  of  that 
name ;  but  he  does  not  possess  much  authority  with  Catho- 
lics,/or  the  reason  that  he  happens  to  be  a  Protestant  arch- 
bishop."* Illiberality  of  this  kind  is  calculated  rather  to 
mislead  and  deceive  than  to  discover  the  truth  ;  and  I  have 
not  suffered  myself  to  be  betrayed  into  it.  I  should  be 
slow  to  conclude  that  a  Roman  Catholic  writer  is  to  be  dis- 
credited merely  on  account  of  his  religious  belief,  or  that 
what  a  Protestant  says  is  to  be  accepted  as  unconditionally 
true  merely  because  he  is  a  Protestant. 

At  the  risk  of  swelling  this  volume  to  an  undesirable  size, 
I  have  made  extended  quotations  from  different  authors, 
and  from  the  bulls,  encyclicals,  etc.,  of  the  popes.  This  is 
deemed  preferable  to  briefer  extracts  and  condensed  state- 
ments, because  it  furnishes  the  means  of  testing  the  fairness 
and  accuracy  both  of  criticisms  and  arguments.  When  I 
have  found  an  author  manifestly  a  mere  partisan  oil  either 
side,  I  have  endeavored  not  to  be  biased  by  his  influence. 
Cormenin,  although  not  a  Protestant,  seems  to  me  to  be  too 
sweeping  in  his  denunciations  of  many  of  the  popes,  and, 

*  "Hughes  and  Breckenddge  Controversy:"  Preliminary  correspondence, 
pp.  xiv.,  XV.,  xvi.  -■ 


8  PREFACE. 

therefore,  has  excited  in  my  mind  such  suspicion  of  his  im- 
partiality that  I  have  adopted  his  personal  opinions  in  but 
few  instances.  Some  of  his  pictures  of  the  general  corrup- 
tion and  depravity  prevailing  at  Rome  must  be  too  highly 
colored.  I  know  of  no  reason,  however,  why  he  should  be 
any  more  discredited  than  other  historians  upon  general 
questions  of  fact. 

As  my  inquiries  have  been  prosecuted  in  the  midst  of  act- 
ive business  occupations,  with  the  assistance  of  only  a  very 
limited  and  self- acquired  knowledge  of  classical  learning, 
and  with  no  access  to  a  single  authority  or  volume  beyond 
my  own  private  library,  this  book  is  not  designed  for  the  in- 
struction of  the  educated  classes,  who  have  the  means  of 
making  like  inquiries  for  themselves.  It  is  intended  for  the 
people^  who,  in  tlie  main,  are  without  these  means,  and  who 
are  the  final  arbiters  upon  all  public  questions.  If  their  at- 
tention shall  be  arrested  by  it,  and  they  shall  be  excited 
to  additional  diligence  in  guarding  the  civil  and  religious 
rights  guaranteed  to  them  by  the  Government  of  the  United 
States,  it  will  concern  me  very  little  to  know  that  it  has  in- 
vited criticism,  or  that  I,  on  account  of  it,  have  incurred  the 
animosity  and  anathemas  of  such  as  pay  for  the  protection 
our  institutions  give  them  by  Jesuitical  plottings  to  estab- 
lish a  "  Holy  Empire  "  upon  their  ruins. 

R.  W.  T. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

INTRODUCTORY. 


Roman  Catholics  in  the  United  States. — Their  Schools  under  Foreign  Priests 
and  Jesuits. — They  Accept  the  Pope's  Infallibility. — The  Hierarchy  and 
Laymen. — The  Government  of  the  United  States. — It  is  Opposed  as  Usur- 
pation, because  not  Founded  on  Religion. — The  Roman  Catholic  Church 
must  Rule  in  both  Spirituals  and  Temporals. — The  People  Need  a  Master. 
— Their  Whole  Duty  is  Obedience. — Infallibility  :  the  Old  and  New  Doc- 
trine.— The  Encyclical  and  Syllabus  of  Pius  IX Page  19 

CHAPTER  II. 

The  Pope  and  Civil  Affairs. — Preparations  to  Make  him  Infallible. — The 
Bishop's  Oath, — National  Council  of  Baltimore. — Their  Theory  of  Gov- 
ernment.— Defense  of  the  Ancient  Rights  of  the  Papacy. — Arraignment 

,  of  Protestantism  as  Infidelity,  and  a  Failure. — Popular  and  Monarch- 
ical Government. — Protestant  Toleration  necessary  to  Popular  Govern- 
ment   40 

CHAPTER  III. 

War  against  Protestantism. — Roman  Catholic  Literature  and  Intolerance. — 
The  Bible  to  be  Closed. — The  Spanish  Inquisition  Justified. — Freedom  of 
Thought  Denounced  as  Sin. — Tracts  in  Favor  of  the  Pope's  Infollibility, 
and  Universal  Supremacy  in  Faith  and  Morals.— Morals  Involve  Politics. 
— "The  Index  Expurgatorius." — Condemnation  and  Punishment  of  Gali- 
leo.— Spanish  Inquisition. — The  Middle  Ages  preferred  to  the  Present 
Times •  70 

CHAPTER  IV. 

Papal  Hopes  of  Success  in  the  United  States.— The  Jesuits.— Their  Charac- 
ter.— Their  Expulsion  by  Roman  Catholic  Governments.— Their  Suppres- 
sion by  Clement  XIV.— Causes  of  it.— His  Bull— Expelled  from  Russia. 
—Causes  of  it.— Their  Restoration  by  Pius  VII.— Their  Support  of  Mon- 
archy.— The  Order  not  Religious. — Its  Constitution. — Its  Authors. — They 
Denounce  Protestantism  as  Infidelity. — They  Threaten  the  Inquisition. — 
Movements  during  the  Rebellion. — Napoleon  III.  and  Pius  IX. — Intoler- 
ance of  the  Latter. — Precedents  of  Kings  humiliated  by  the  Popes 98 


10  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  V. 

The  Pope's  Infallibility  makes  him  a  Domestic  Prince  in  all  Nations. — The 
Popes  never  Exceeded  the  Limits  of  their  Authority. — The  Temporal  Pow-' 
er  Divinely  conferred  as  Part  of  the  Spiritual. — The  Po])e  to  he  King  ev- 
erywhere.— No  Kight  of  Complaint  against  Ilim. — First  Dogmatic  Consti- 
tution of  the  Late  Council. — Decree  of  the  Pope's  Infallibility. — Archbish- 
op Manning's  Definition  of  It. — It  gives  the  Pope  whatever  Authority  he 
Claims. — It  is  a  Personal  Privilege. — It  confers  Coercive  Power  upon  the 
Pope. — The  Present  Governments  are  Dissolving. — The  Syllabus  alone 
will  save  them .*. Page  130 

CHAPTER  VL 

Claim  of  Divine  Power  over  Temporals  by  Pius  IX. — Its  Extent. — He  alone 
Defines  its  Limits. — Effect  of  this  in  the  United  States. — Principles  of  the 
Constitution  within  the  Jurisdiction  of  the  Papacy. — Germany,  Italv,  etc. 
— The  Pope  stirs  up  Insurrection  there. — The  Jesuits  Expelled. — Papists 
in  the  United  States  Justify  Resistance  to  the  Law  of  Germany. — Same 
Laws  in  the  United  States. — Effect  upon  Allegiance. — Bavarian  Protest. 
— Abuse  of  the  Confessional. — Power  of  Absolution. — The  Immoral  Bear- 
ings of  the  Confessional IGl 

CHAPTER  VIL 

The  Encyclical  and  Syllabus  of  Pius  IX. — The  Doctrines  of  the  Encyclical. 
— It  includes  Bulls  of  other  Popes. — The  Doctrines  of  the  Syllabus. — Op- 
posed to  Modern  Progress. — Doctrines  of  Boniface  VIII. — Council  of 
Trent  on  Crimes  of  Clergy. — The  Bull  "  Unam  Sanctam"  uniting  the 
Spiritual  and  Temporal  Swords 195 

CHAPTER  Vin. 

Infallibility  before  the  late  Decree. — The  Pope's  Temporal  Power  not  Di- 
vine.— The  Italian  People. — The  Government  of  the  Papal  States. — Jes- 
uitism.— Mutilation  of  Books  at  Rome. — Union  of  Church  and  State  by 
Constantino. — His  Grant  Supposititious. — He  did  not  unite  with  the 
Church  of  Rome. — Rome  was  governed  by  Imperial  Officers. — The  Apos- 
tles had  no  Temporal  Power 220 

CHAPTER  IX. 

Same  Power  conferred  on  all  the  Apostles. — Roman  Church  not  the  First 
Established. — Ancient  Churches  Equal. — Leo  I.  Great  and  Ambitious.-^ 
His  Interviews  Avith  Attila  and  Genseric. — Persecution  of  Priscillian. — 
Rival  Popes. — Belisarius  seized  Rome,  and  made  Vigilius  Pope. — Pope 
Silverius  put  to  Death. — Vigilius  and  Justinian. — The  "Three  Chapters." 
— Popes  elected  with  Emperor's  Consent. — Gregory  1 257 

CHAPTER  X. 
Churches  Independent  before  Constantine. — Victor  I.  endeavored  to  establish 
the  Supremacy  of  Rome. — Ambition  of  the  Popes.— Aided  Constantine  to 


CONTEXTS.  11 

overthrow  Maxentius.— Consequences.— Constantine  a  Usurper. — Maxen- 
tius  the  Lawful  Emperor.— Constantine  baptized  just  before  his  Death.— 
His  Motives.— Influence  upon  lioinan  Clergy.— Arianism.— The  Council 
of  Nice.— The  Pope  had  Nothing  to  do  with  It.— Called  by  the  Emperor. 
—The  Tope  did  not  preside  by  his  Legates.— lie  did  not  approve  tlie  De- 
crees as  Necessary  to  their  Validity.— Constantine  was  the  Master  Spirit.— 
He  dictated  the  Creed.— He  fixed  Infallibihty  in  the  Council.— The  Coun- 
cil did  not  decree  the  Primacy  of  the  Eishop  of  Home. — It  enacted  only 
T\Tenty  Canons.— All  other  pretended  Ones  are  Forgeries Page  280 

CHAPTER  XL 

Temporal  Power.— None  possessed  by  Peter.— Alliance  between  Pepin  and 
Zachary.— Double  Conspiracy.— The  Pope  released  the  Allegiance  of  the 
French  People.— Made  Pepin  King.— The  Lombards  in  Italy.— The  Pope 
bargained  with  Pepin,  and  was  guilty  of  Revolt  against  the  Empire.— Pep- 
in seized  Territory  from  the  Lombards,  and  gave  it  to  the  Pope. —  Both 
were  Revolutionists  and  Traitors.— The  Pope  usurped  what  belonged  to 
the  Empire.— Pepin  did  not  conquer  Rome.— The  Divine  Right  of  Kings. 
—Pepin's  Second  Visit.— Pope  sent  Letters  to  him  from  the  Virgin  Mary, 
Peter,  etc.— He  re-affirmed  his  Gift  to  the  Pope.— Charlemagne.— Adrian 
I.— He  absolves  the  Franks  from  all  Crimes  in  Bavaria.— Makes  Charle- 
magne Emperor.— He  completes  the  Papal  Rebellion  against  the  Empire. 
—Charlemagne  confirmed  Pepiu's  Gift.— He  did  not  grant  any  Temporal 
Dominion  in  Rome.— He  dictated  the  Filioque  in  the  Creed 320 

CHAPTER  XIL 

The  Popes  Subjects  of  the  Eastern  Empire.— The  Ninth  Century.— TI:c 
Emperor  Leo  V.  and  Pope  Pascal  I.— Image- worship. —Church  of  St. 
Ceciha  in  Rome.— Louis  le  Dcbonnaire.— Factions  at  Rome.— Constitu- 
tion of  Lothaire.— Eugenius  II.  and  Valentine.— Gregory  IV.— Sergins. 
—Death  of  Pope  Leo  IV.— Tlie  Alleged  Poness  Joan.— Peter-pence.— 
East  separates  from  West.— Nicholas  I.  claims  Universal  Power.— His 
Manner  of  exercising  it.— Bonifoce  VL  poisoned  by  Stephen  VII.— Trial 
of  Dead  Pope.— The  Pseudo-Isidorian  Decretals.— Victor  I.  and  the  Cel- 
ebration of  Easter,— Polycarp  and  Anacetus.— Irenreiis.— The  Character 
of  the  Decretals.— The  Papal  System  based  upon  them.— All  False  and 
^^^■SeJ • SoG 

""  CHAPTER  XIIL 
The  False  Decretals.  — Nicholas  L  governed  by  Them.  — His  Character.— 
Adrian  II.— John  VIII.— John  XIL— Benedict  IX.— Three  Popes  at 
Same  Time.— German  Emperors  create  Popes.— Leo  IX.  — Hildebrand. 
—He  becomes  Pope  as  Gregory  VIL— Principles  established  by  Him.— 
His  Quarrel  with  Philip  of  France.  — His  Bull  against  Henry  IV. —He 
adopts  the  False  Decretals.— Pius  IX.  does  the  Same. —Gregory  VIL 
stirs  up  Revolt  in  Germany.— The  Emperor  Henry  IV.  in  Rome.-^Death 
of  Gregory  VIL  — His  Successors  maintain  his  PoHcy. --Urban  IL— Ca- 
lixtus  IL— Adrian  IV.  grants  Ireland  to  England.— The  Gratian  Deere- 


^ 


1 2  CONTENTS. 

tills, — They  authorize  Pliysical  Compulsion  and  Torture. — Arnold  of  Bres- 
cia burned  by  Adrian  IV. — Alexander  III.  and  Victor  IV. — Alexander 
III.  releases  the  Subjects  of  Frederick  Barharossa  from  their  Allegiance. — 
.  His  Character. — Submission  of  Frederick. — The  Tliird  Lateran  Council. 
—  Decree  authorizing  Waldenses  and  Albigenses  to  be  put  to  Death. — 
The  Thirteentli  Century, — Innocent  III. — His  Ambition  and  Usurpation. 
—His  Claim  of  Divine  Power. — He  releases  the  Subjects  of  Otho  from 
their  Allegiance.— His  Bull  to  put  the  Vaudois  to  Death.— The  Inquisi- 
tion.— Boniface  VIII. —  His  Bull  Unam  Sanctain. — He  caused  a  New 
Body  of  False  Decretals  to  be  composed.  —  Opposition  of  the  Galilean 
Church Page  387" 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

The  Native  Britons.— Their  Religion  before  Augustine.— Gildas  and  Bede. 
—Augustine  holds  Synod  with  British  Bishops.  — His  Threats  against 
Them.  — Conversion  of  Ethelfred.  — Battle  of  Carlegeon,  and  Murder  of 
Monks  of  Bangor. — Roman  Religion  introduced.  —  The  Effects  of  It, — 
Ofta  murders  Ethelbert,  and  the  Pope  pardons  Him,— He  establishes  Pe- 
ter-pence,—He  accepts  a  Code  of  Canon  Laws  from  Adrian  I.— The  Na- 
tive Britons  and  the  Saxons,— Their  Customs  and  Religion  are  imparted 
to  each  Other.— Saxon  Kings  willingly  accept  the  Doctrine  of  the  "Di- 
vine Right"  to  govern  from  Rome.— The  Norman  Conquest,— Harold,— 
William  of  Normandy,— The  Decision  of  Alexander  II.  upon  his  Claim. 
—Consecrated  Banner  and  a  Hair  of  St,  Peter. — Battle  of  Hastings. — In- 
fluence on  England.— Celibacy  introduced,— Example  of  the  Legate  of 
Ilonorius  II.— Innocent  III.  and  King  John.— He  releases  the  Subjects 
of  John  from  their  Allegiance. — Holds  all  Disobedient  Kings  to  be  Traitors 
tQ  God.  — His  Claim  of  Power  and  that  of  Pius  IX.  the  Same,  — Church 
and  State  united. —Cardinal  Antonelli  to  Papal  Nuncio  at  Paris.— He 
approves  the  Bull  Unigenitua  of  Clement  XI. — His  Theory  of  the  Indi- 
rect Power,— Its  Eflfoct.— A  Heretical  King  forfeits  his  Kingdom.— The 
Pope  chooses  a  King  for  a  Heretical  Nation 423 

CHAPTER  XV. 

The  Pope  turns  England  over  to  France.- Resistance  of  the  Barons.— John 
resigns  the  Crown  to  the  Pope.— Langton.— Charter  of  Henry  I,— Barons 
form  a  League,— Langton  supports  the  Barons.— Magna  Charta.— John 
swears  to  obey  it.— The  Pope  releases  Him,  and  annuls  the  Charter.— 
He  claims  England  as  a  Fief.— Foreign  Mercenaries.— Henry  IIL— Ital- 
ian and  Foreign  Priests.  — King  promises  to  observe  the  Charter.— The 
Pope  again  releases  Him.— Appeals  to  Rome.— Peter- pence, —Immuni- 
ties of  Clergy.— They  murder  with  Impunity,— House  of  Commons  estab- 
lislied,— Pope  again  releases  the  King  from  his  Oath.— Civil  War,— The 
Barons  defeated.— Their  Treatment  by  the  King  and  Pope.— Edward  L 
confirms  the  Charter. —The  Pope  releases  Him. —Edward  IL— The 
Statutes  of  Provisors  and  of  Praemunire.— Tiie  Lollards.— Law  for  burning 
Heretics.— William  Sawtre  and  Thomas  Badby  burned.— Lollards  attack- 
ed.—Clergy  exempt  from  Punishment  in  Secular  Courts.— Their  Corrup- 


CONTENTS.  ,  13 

tion  and  that  of  the  Popes. — Urban  V.  and  Gregory  XI. — Popes  and  Anti- 
popes. —  Scandalous  and  Disgraceful  Conduct.  —  Gregory  XII.  Pope  at 
Kome,  and  Benedict  XIII.  at  Avignon. — Both  declared  Infamous  by  the 
Council  of  Pisa.  —  Alexander  V. — John  XXIII.  deposed  for  Enormous 
Crimes  by  Council  of  Constance,  —  Martin  V.  —  Influence  upon  the 
Church. — Corruption  almost  Universal. — The  Eruits  of  the  Ealse  De- 
cretals  Page  4r>r> 

CHAPTER  XVI. 

Religious  Persecution  antedates  Protestantism. — L'ucins  HI.  and  Innocent 
III.  persecute  theWaldenses  and  Albigenses. — TheEourth  Lateran  Coun- 
cil.— The  Third  Canon  provides  for  extirpating  Heretics,  and  taking  away 
their  Country. — Law  of  the  Church. — Acted  upon  in  the  Eifteenth  Centu- 
ry by  Innocent  VIII. — The  Practice  of  Innocent  III.  under  it. — Persecu- 
tion made  a  Religious  Duty. — Reformation  in  Germany. — Luther  and  the 
Pope. — Henry  Vlir.  and  the  Pope  quarrel  about  Supremacy,  not  Eaith. — 
Protestants  do  not  assist  Him. — The  Pope  releases  his  Subjects  from  their 
Allegiance. — Their  Adherents  persecute  each  Other. — More  and  Eisher. 
— Henry  VIII.  always  a  Roman  Catholic  in  Eaith. — He  persecutes  Re- 
formers and  Papists. — Edward  VI.  the  first  Protestant  King. — He  does 
not  persecute  Papists. — Gives  the  Crown  to  Lady  Jane  Grey. — Mary,  the 
Rightful  Heir,  proclaimed  Queen.  —  Her  Promise  to  the  Reformers  that 
they  should  not  be  disturbed  in  their  Religion. — She  refuses  to  be  bound 
by  her  Promise. — The  Teachings  of  Rome. — Mary's  Measures  all  Papal. — 
Her  Persecution  of  Protestants. — Her  Marriage  to  Philip  of  Spain. — The 
Result  of  the  League  between  Pope  Paul  III.  and  Charles  V. — Cardinal 
Pole. — Dictates  Policy  of  the  English  Government. — Persecutions  con- 
tinue.—  Hooper,  Latimer,  and  Ridley. — Elizabeth. — She  persecutes  both 
Papists  and  Protestants.  —  Is  educated  in  the  School  of  Rome.  —  Only 
seeks  to  substitute  Imperial  Protestantism  for  Imperial  Romanism....  48o 

CHxVPTER  XVIL 

Coercive  Power  of  the  Chnrcli. — Parties  and  Pactions. — Quarrel  between 
Rome  and  Avignon. — Philip  of  Erance  and  Boniface  VIII. — Power 
claimed  by.  his  Bull  Unnm  Sanctam.  —  Promise  of  Clement  V.  to  Con- 
demn Bonifoce  VIII.— John  XXII.  and  Nicholas  V. — Benedict  XII. — 
Corruption  of  the  Eourteenth  Century. — The  Beginning  of  the  Eifteenth 
Century. — Three  Councils  called  by  Gregory  XI F.,  Benedict  XFIL,  and 
the  Cardinals. — Council  of  Pisa. —  It  condemns  both  Popes,  and  deposes 
Them. — Alexander  V.  elected.  —  He  confirms  all  the  Decrees  of  the 
Council. — Three  Popes.— Balthasar  Costa  becomes  Pope,  as  John  XXIII. 
—Council  of  Constance.— Tries  and  Condemns  Gregory  XII.,  Benedict 
XIII.,  and  John  XXIII. — The  Latter  found  Guilty  of  Enormous  and 
Scandalous  Crimes. — He  is  deposed,  and  the  Doctrine  of  the  Pope's  In- 
foUibility  condemned.  —  Difficulty  in  maintaining  the  Succession  of  the 
Popes. — May  be  two  Infellible  Popes  at  same  Time. — Corruption  in  the 
Council. — John  IIuss  and  Jerome. — Their  Trial  and  Death. — Effect  in 
Bohemia. — Martin  V. — His  Policy. — Violation  of  his  Promise  to  Alphon- 


14  CONTENTS. 

so. — His  Bull  against  the  King  of  Avragon. — His  Letter  to  his  Legate. — 
Becomes  sole  Pope. — His  Letter  to  the  King  of  Pohmd  for  exterminating 
the  Hussites. —His  Death. — Effects  of  his  Keign Page  523 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 
Adrian  IV.,  and  the  Grant  of  Ireland  to  England. — Ireland  brought  within 
Jurisdiction  of  Rome  in  the  Twelfth  Century. — Enlargement  of  the  Papal 
Power.  —  Secular  Power  administered  by  Commission  from  the  Pope. — 
Gregory  VII,  and  Innocent  III. — Tlie  Fourth  Lateran  Council  establish- 
es the  Faith  that  Institutions  prejudicial  to  the  Church  should  not  be  ob- 
served.—^Papal  Doctrine  in  Regard  to  Oaths. — Urban  VI.,  Eugenius  IV., 
and  Innocent  III. — Nature  of  the  Oath  exacted  by  Innocent  III.  from 
King  John. — Subjects  all  Governments  to  the  Pope. — Effect  in  the  United 
States. — Constitutional  Oath  of  Allegiance. — Its  Obligation. — The  Papal 
Theory  on  that  Subject. — Oaths  opposed  to  the  Welfare  of  the  Church  not 
binding. — Unlawful  Oaths  not  binding. — What  are  Lawful,  and  what  are 
Unlawful. — The  Papal  Principle  applied  to  the  Government  of  the  United 
States. — The  Papal  Argument  by  Balmes.  —  Resistance  to  Civil  Power 
usurped. — When  it  is  usurped, — When  Legal,  and  when  Illegal. — Govern- 
ments de  jure  and  de  facto. — Obedience  to  the  Last  not  Obligatory. — May 
be  recognized  from  Prudential  Motives. — Government  of  the  United  States 
is  de  facto. — The  Monarchies  of  Europe,  when  Obedient  to  the  Pope,  are 
de  jure.— 'The.  Doctrine  of  Consummated  Facts  denied, — Illegitimate  Au- 
thority can  not  become  Legitimate  by  Time. — Rendering  to  Caesar  the 
Things  that  are  Caesar's  only  requires  Obedience  to  Legitimate  Govern- 
ments. —  Legitimate  Governments  are  only  such  as  are  based  on  the  Law 
of  God,— That  of  the  United  States  is  not  Legitimate 550 

CHAPTER  XIX. 

The  ]?ights  of  the  Papacy  not  lost  by  Revolution. — No  Legitimate  Right 
acquired  by  it, — Revolutions  always  Iniquitous. — Christopher  Columbus. 
— He  takes  Possession  of  the  New  World  in  the  Name  of  the  Church  of 
Rome. — He  thereby  expands  its  Domain. — The  Popes  claim  Jurisdic- 
tion in  Consequence. — Illegitimate  Power  obtained  by  Revolution  can  not 
destroy  this  Right  of  Jurisdiction, — Exercise  of  the  Power  in  England  by 
Alexander  II.,  and  in  Germany  by  Gregory  VII. — Defense  of  Gregory 
Vir. — Direct  and  Indirect  Power. — Doctrine  asserted  by  Peter  Dens. — 
Bellarmine  tlie  Author  of  the  Theory  of  Indirect  Power. — Doctrine  of  St. 
Thomas. — That  of  Cardinal  D'Ostia. — Infidels  can  have  no  Just  Title  to 
Governments.— The  Pope  may  dispose  of  Them. — Gregory  III.,  Stephen 
II.,  and  Leo  III.  all  justified. — Also  Gregory  VII.,  Innocent  III.,  Adrian 
IV.,  and  Boniface  VHI, — The  Late  Lateran  Council  makes  them  all  In- 
fallible.—  They  claim  the  Direct  Power.  —  The  Doctrine  of  Indirect 
Power  an  After-tliought  in  Answer  to  the  Objection  of  Protestants. — The 
Papal  Jurisdiction  in  America  the  Same  under  Either. — Alexander  VI. 
divides  America  between  Spain  and  Portugal. — Resumption  of  this  Au- 
thority defended  by  Jesuits. — Obedience  to  Governments  de  faci,o  not  en- 
joined l)y  the  Church  of  Rome.— Eflleet  of  this  Doctrine  upon  the  Oath 


CONTENTS.  >  15 

of  Allegiiince, — Doctrine  of  "Mental  Restrictions,"  and  "Ambiguity  and 
Equivocation"  in  Oaths, — Jesuit  Teachings  on  this  Subject. — The  Object 
of  the  Second  Council  of  Baltimore  to  introduce  the  Canon  Law. — What 
it  is. — Its  Effect  if  introduced  in  the  United  States. — Punishment  of  Her- 
etics.— Extirpation  of  Infidelit3^ — Heretics  rightfully  punished  with  Death. 
— All  Baptized  Protestants  are  Subjects  of  the  Pope. — May  all  be  right- 
fully punished  for  Disobedience Page  58i) 

CHAPTER  XX. 

Infallibihty  formerly  in  General  Councils  and  the  Popes  conjointly. — Efforts 
made  to  prove  this  in  England  and  the  United  States. — Books  published 
on  the  Subject  in  both  Countries. — Extracts  from  Several  of  Them. — 
Doctrine  of  French  Christians  on  that  Subject. — They  deny  the  Infallibili- 
ty of  the  Pope. — Proceedings  in  England  to  obtain  Catholic  Emancipa- 
tion.— The  Doctrine  denied  both  in  England  and  Ireland.  — The  Pope's 
Infallibility  a  New  Doctrine. — Denied  in  the  Catechism. — Distinction  be- 
tween the  Church  and  the  Papacy. — Infallibility  in  the  Church  during  the 
Early  Times. — The  Greeks  never  admitted  the  Infallibility  of  the  Pope. — 
The  First  Seven  Councils  mainly  Greek. — They  concede  Primacy  of  Hon- 
or, not  Jurisdiction,  to  the  Pppe. — The  Council  of  Nice. — The  First  Coun- 
cil of  Constantinople. — The  Council  of  Ephesus. — The  Council  of  Chalce- 
don. — The  Second  Council  of  Constantinople. — The  Third  Council  of' 
Constantinople.  —  The  Second  Council  of  Nice. — The  Fourth  Council  of 
Constantinople.  —  Subsequent  Councils  held  by  the  Latins.  —  The  First 
Lateran  Council.  —  The  Second  Lateran  Council. — The  Third  Lateran 
Council. — The  Introduction  of  Papal  Constitutions. — Adding  them  to  De- 
crees of  Councils. — More  Effort  to  make  Law  for  the  Church  by  the  Force 
of  Precedent. — The  Fourth  Lateran  Council. — Blindly  obedient  to  Inno- 
cent HI. — The 'Primacy  of  the  Church,  not  of  the  Pope,  established. — 
Constitutions  of  Heretical  Princes  not  Binding. — Part  of  the  Canon  Law. 
— The  First  Council  of  Lyons.  —  The  Second  Council  of  Lyons.  —  The 
Council  of  Vienne.  — None  of  these  Councils  declare  the  Pope  Infelli- 
ble 015 

CHAPTER  XXL 

The  Condition  of  the  Church  at  the  Time  of  the  Councils  of  Basel  and  Flor- 
ence.— Council  at  Pavia  fixed  by  that  of  Florence. — Approved  by  Martin 
V. — Transferred  to  Basel. — Meets  there,  and  is  presided  over  by  Legate  of 
Eugenius  IV. — It  is  Ecumenical. — Agrees  with  that  of  Constance  about 
its  Power  over  the  Pope. -^Eugenius  IV.  endeavors  to  defeat  It. —His 
Proceedings  against  It. — Organizes  a  Factious  Assembly  at  Ferrara.— 
Proceedings  of  the  Council  against  Him.— He  pretends  to  yield,  and  ap- 
proves its  Decrees.— He  violates  his  Pledge.— He  draws  the  Greeks  to 
Florence,  and  calls  the  Meeting  there  a  Council.  —  It  is  not  Ecumen- 
ical ;  the  Council  at  Basel  is  at  first,  when  its  Decree  against  the  Pope's 
Infallibility  is  passed. — It  represents  a  Majority  of  Christians. — The 
Council  at  Florence  is  mainly  Italian. — The  Pope's  Agreement  with  the 
Greeks  about  his  Primacy. — Limited  by  Decrees  of  Councils  and  Canons 


iQ  contp:nts. 

of  the  Church. — The  Greeks  reject  the  Agreement,  and  it  falls. — This  is 
called  a  Decree. — Its  Terms. — Misrepresentation  of  Them. — Do  not  make 
tlie  Pope  Infallible.  —  Give  him  the  Primacy  conferred  by  Decree:^  and 
Canons. — Primacy  of  Honor,  not  Jurisdiction. — The  Fifteenth  Century,  aft- 
er the  Council  of  Florence. — The  French  Church. — Charles  VII. — Coun- 
cil at  Bourges. — Pragmatic  Sanction. — Opposition  of  the  Popes  to  it. — 
Revoked  by  Louis  XL  —  Parliament  resisted.  —  Council  of  Pisa.  —  The 
Fifth  Lateran  Council  in  Opposition  to  it. — The  Former  renews  the  De- 
crees of  Constance  and  Basel. — The  Latter  factious  at  Beginning. — Aft- 
erward assents  to. — Concordat  of  Bologna  agreed  to  by  Francis  I.  and 
Pope  Julius  II. — Rejected  by  France. — French  Bishops  do  not  attend  the 
Council. — It  is  not  Ecumenical. — No  Deliberation  in  it. — Submissive  to 
Leo  X. — Council  of  Trent. — Does  not  assert  the  Pope's  InfallibilitT. — 
Does  not  deny  the  Validity  of  the  Decree  of  Council  of  Constance. — 
Concedes  merely  Power  of  Pope  to  interpret  the  Canons,  not  to  set  them 
aside. — Pius  IV.  does  this  only  in  his  Profession  of  Faith Page  G45 

CHAPTER  XXII. 

The  Laity  and  the  Church. — They  once  aid  in  Election  of  Popes. — Greg- 
ory VII.  takes  away  this  Power,  and  vests  it  in  the  College  of  Cardinals. 
— His  Object  is  Universal  Dominion. — Tlie  Papacy  necessarily  Intoler- 
ant.— Never  satisfied  with  Freedom  of  Conscience. — Condemned  in  Sylla- 
bus of  Pius  IX. — Denounced  when  introduced  in  Austria. — He  excom- 
municates all  Heretics. — JNIagna  Charta. — Religious  Toleration  in  Mary- 
land.— The  Colony  Part  of  Virginia. — English  Supremacy  established  by 
Law  in  Virginia. — The  Law  extended  over  Maryland. — Lord  Baltimore 
in  Virginia. — He  can  not  take  the  Oath  as  a  Roman  Catholic. — Obtains 
Grant  from  Charles  I. — It  provides  for  Religious  Toleration  in  the  New 
Colony, — This  is  a  Necessity  to  Lord  Baltimore. — He  can  not  settle  a 
Roman  Catholic  Colony  without  it. — Charles  T.  fiivors  the  Papists. — Ro- 
man Catholic  Emigrants  to  Maryland. — Make  War  on  Virginians  found 
there. — They  suppress  the  Protestants. —  Efforts  to  establish  the  Royal 
Authority  of  Lord  Baltimore. — Oath  of  Allegiance  to  him. — Offices  filled 
by  Roman  Catholics. — All  Writs  run  in  his  Name. — Those  who  refuse 
Fidelity  to  him  forfeit  their  Property. — Their  Lands  to  be  seized. — Col- 
onists under  Control  of  Jesuit  Priests. — Their  Claim  of  Church  Immuni- 
ties.— Opposition  to  English  Law. — Jesuits  never  in  Favor  of  Religious  Tol- 
eration.— The  Condition  of  the  Papacy  at  that  Time. — Completely  allied 
with  the  Jesuits. — Gregory  XV. — His  Persecutions. — His  Influence  over 
Louis  XHI.  of  France. — Urban  VIII. — Terrible  Persecutions  under  his 
Reign. — Cardinal  Richelieu  andOlivarez. — Persecution  of  Galileo. — Bank 
Debt  collected  by  Bull  of  the  Pope. — All  the  Teachings  of  the  Church  op- 
posed to  Religious  Toleration. — The  Legislation  in  Maryland  is  only  in 
Obedience  to  the  Charter. — May  have  had  the  Assent  of  Laymen,  but 
not  of  the  Priests  or  the  Church. — Could  not  have  the  Assent  of  Pope 
Pius  IX.  now GG9 


CONTENTS.  17 


CHAPTER  XXIII. 

The  Papal  Theory  of  Government. — The  Kind  of  Christian  State  it  requires. 
— The  Laws  of  Theodosius  and  Justinian. — The  Ordinances  in  France 
in  the  Times  of  her  Kings  most  in  Favor  at  Rome. — No  Other  Religion 
than  the  Roman  Catholic  allowed. — Heresy  made  a  Crime  against  the  State. 
— Modes  of  punishing  Heretics. — These  Laws  required  by  the  Church. — 
The  State  Heretical  without  Them. — The  Protestant  System. — Separates 
the  Church  and  the  State. — Is  in  Obedience  to  the  Example  of  Christ  and 
the  Apostles. — The  Harmony  they  established  between  the  Spiritual  and 
Temporal  Powers  disturbed  by  the  Popes. — The  Consequences  of  disturb- 
ing this  Harmony. — Papal  Doctrines  in  the  United  States. — They  subject 
the  State  to  the  Government  of  the  Pope. — How  far  they  do  this. — In  All 
Temporals  which  concern  the  Faith  or  Morality. — The  Government  can 
not  stand  if  this  Doctrine  prevail, — The  Extent  to  which  it  is  carried. — 
It  is  based  upon  the  Bull  Unam  Sanctam  of  Boniface  VIII. — "Temporal 
Monarchy  "  claimed  as  Necessary  for  the  World.  — Harmonious  Condition 
of  the  First  Christians.  —  Churches  planted  in  Asia  before  those  in  Eu- 
rope.—  The  Work  well  done  by  the  Apostles. — Jerusalem  the  "Mother 
Church."  —  No  Necessity  for  another  at  Rome. — The  Consequences  of 
Opposition  to  the  Apostolic  Plan. — They  lead  to  the  Reformation. — Effect 
of  the  Reformation. — Present  Efforts  of  the  Papacy  to  turn  the  World 
back. — The  Contest  in  the  United  States. — Conclusion Page  695 


APPENDIX. 

A.  Bishop's  Oath 717 

B.  The  Third  Article  of  the  Pastoral  Letter  of  the  Second 

National  Council  of  Baltimore 718 

C.  The  Encyclical  Letter  OF  Pope  Pius  IX 721 

D.  The  Syllabus  of  Pope  Pius  IX 728 

2 


UNIVERSITl 

THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 


CHAPTER  I. 

INTRODUCTORY. 

Roman  Catholics  in  the  United  States. — Their  Schools  under  Foreign  Priests 
and  Jesuits, — They  Accept  the  Pope's  Infallibility. — The  Hierarchy  and 
Laymen. — The  Government  of  the  United  States. — It  is  Opposed  as  Usur- 
pation, because  not  Founded  on  Religion. — The  Roman  Catholic  Church 
must  Rule  in  both  Spirituals  and  Temporals. — The  People  Need  a  Master. 
— Their  Whole  Duty  is  Obedience. — Infallibility :  the  Old  and  New  Doc- 
trine.— The  Encyclical  and  Syllabus  of  Pius  IX. 

Many  persons  now  living  will  remember  when  there  were 
very  few  Roman  Catholics  in  the  United  States,  compared 
with  the  bulk  of  the  population ;  and  none  at  all  in  some  of 
the  oldest  and  most  densely  populated  parts  of  the  country. 
With  the  exception  of  the  descendants  of  the  Maryland  col- 
onists, and  of  those  who  had  settled  in  Louisiana  before  its 
purchase,  they  were  to  be  found  only  upon  the  frontier,  in 
the  large  cities,  and  with  here  and  there  a  church  in  the  in- 
terior. They  were  not  sufficiently  numerous  to  have  at- 
tracted any  especial  attention,  and  were  generally  and  gen- 
erously accepted  by  Protestants  as  co-workers  in  the  cause 
of  Christianity.  They  were  not  disposed  to  invite  any  an- 
tagonism with  the  prevailing  Protestant  faith,  and  when  such 
antagonism  was  known  to  exist,  were  prompt  and  emphatic 
in  rebuking  it.  Their  priests  appeared  to  be  humble  and 
unpretending  men,  professing  only  the  single  object  of  serv- 
ing their  Divine  Master,  and  seemingly  ready,  when  stricken 
upon  one  cheek,  to  turn  the  other.  Humility  was  one  of  their 
most  prominent  characteristics. 

It  is  otherwise  now.  There  are  seven  archbishops,  fifty- 
three  bishops,  six  vicars  apostolic,  priests  whose  numbers  it 


20  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

is  impossible  to  compute,  and  a  membership  variously  esti- 
mated by  the  official  organs  of  the  Church  at  from  six  to 
eight  millions  —  about  one -sixth  of  our  whole  population. 
It  is  asserted  that  there  are  over  four  hundred  educational 
institutions  in  the  different  States  and  Territories,  besides 
many  private  schools,  under  the  immediate  and  exclusive 
government  of  the  papal  hierarchy.  In  these  schools,  with- 
out any  exception,  it  is  made  absolutely  and  indispensably 
necessary  that  the  dogmas  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
shall  be  taught  to  all  the  pupils,  as  the  beginning  and  end 
of  all  necessary  education ;  that  it  shall  be  fixed  in  their 
minds,  as  a  sentiment  of  religious  faith,  that,  since  the  de- 
cree of  papal  infallibility,  they  owe,  within  the  domain  of 
faith  and  morals,  a  higher  allegiance  to  the  Pope  of  Rome 
than  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  or  that  of  any 
State ;  and  that  any  violation  of  this  allegiance  will  bring 
upon  them  the  severest  censures  of  the  Church,  and  inevita- 
bly lead  to  their  eternal  punishment  in  the  world  to  come. 
There  were  recently  eleven  hundred  and  thirteen  teachers  in 
charge  of  these  institutions.  They  have  been  selected  for 
this  particular  duty,  on  account  of  their  submissive  obedi- 
ence to  the  pope  and  his  American  hierarchs.  And  besides 
these,  it  is  said  that  there  are  two  thousand  three  hundred 
and  eighty-three  sisters  of  various  orders,  who  have  in  their 
hands  the  training  and  education  of  the  aggregate  number 
of  thirty -three  thousand  eight  hundred  and  fifty -three  fe- 
male pupils.  (') 

In  a  late  work  the  following  reference  is  made  to  the  rapid 
growth  of  Romanism  in  the  United  States : 

(')  "  Catholic  Family  Almanac,"  1872,  p.  79. 

"For  the  year  1875  the  following  estimate  is  made  in  Sadlier's  'Catholic 
Directory.'  Archbishops  and  bishops  the  same  as  in  1872;  priests,  4873; 
churches,  chapels,  and  stations,  6920,  of  which  4800  are  churches  ;  theolog- 
ical seminaries,  18;  studying  for  the  priesthood,  1375;  colleges,  68;  acad- 
emies, 511;  parish  schools,  1444;  asylums,  homes,  and  refuges,  215;  hos- 
pitals, 87;  and  the  Roman  Catholic  population,  exclusive  of  Baltimore, 
Charleston,  Erie,  and  Brooklyn — for  which  no  estimates  are  given  —  is 
placed  at  5,761,242.  By  this  same  statement  it  appears  that  in  1814  there 
were  only  85  priests  in  the  United  States ;  in  1834  the  number  had  increased 
to  308 ;  and  in  1837  there  were  1  archbishop,  14  bishops,  390  priests,  800 
churches,  and  143  stations."— iVew  York  Tablet,  January  2d,  1875. 


PEOTESTANT  AND  CATHOLIC  STATISTICS.  21 

"But  it  is  in  our  own  country,  above  every  other,  that  the 
recent  gains  of  Romanism  upon  Protestantism  are  the  most 
remarkable.  At  the  close  of  the  two  centuries  and  a  half 
that  elapsed  from  the  first  settlement  of  Virginia  to  the 
year  1859,  the  number  of  Catholics  in  the  United  States  had 
run  up  to  two  millions  and  a  half  only  ;  but  at  the  end  of 
the  nine  years  that  succeeded  (namely,  in  1868)  that  num- 
ber had  doubled.  Twelve  years  ago  they  were  but  a  twelfth 
part  of  our  population;  to-day  they  constitute,  probably, 
more  than  a  seventh." 

In  the  same  work  a  compilation  is  made  from  a  source 
considered  entirely  reliable,  as  follows: 

«*  Number  of  Protestants  in  the  United  States  in  1859 21,000,000 

Number  of  Catholics  in  the  United  States  in  1859 2*500^000 

Number  of  Protestants  in  the  United  States  in  1868 27,'o0o'o00 

Number  of  Catholics  in  the  United  States  in  1868 5,000,000 

— Showing  that  the  Catholics  had  increased,  in  the  nine 
years  from  1859  to  1868,  one  hundred  per  cent.,  while  the 
Protestants  had  increased  in  the  same  time  less  than  twenty- 
nine  per  cent." 

Then,  commenting  upon  these  important  and  startling 
facts,  the  author  continues : 

"Those  who  will  verify  the  calculation  of  future  increase, 
supposing  it  to  continue  at  the  same  relative  ratio  for  four 
terms  of  nine  years  each,  commencing  with  the  year  1868, 
will  iind  that  in  1904,  that  is,  in  thirty-three  years  from  to- 
day, there  would  be  eighty  millions  of  Catholics  to  less  than 
seventy-five  millions  of  Protestants  in  the  American  XJn- 
ion."0 

While  it  is  not  by  any  means  certain  that  the  relative 
ratio  of  increase  here  assumed  will  be  borne  out  by  future 
developments,  and  exceedingly  probable  that  it  will  not  be, 
yet  the  facts  stated  show  so  great  and  rapid  an  increase  of 
the  Roman  Catholic  part  of  our  population  as  to  render  it 
an  important  and  necessary  inquiry,  whether  or  not  there  is 
any  thing  in  the  demands  and  teachings  of  the  papacy  which 
requires  that  so  large  a  body  of  the  citizens  of  this  country 


O  "Debatable  Land  between  this  World  and  the  Next,''  by  Robert  Dale 
Owen,  pp.  32,  33,  and  note. 


22  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

shall  put  themselves,  either  now  or  hereafter,  in  opposition 
to  the  principles  we  are  endeavoring,  as  a  nation,  to  perpet- 
uate by  our  civil  institutions.  'No  matter  if  there  are  thou- 
sands of  them  who  would  refuse  to  do  so,  if  required  even 
by  the  pope :  this  does  not  diminish  the  importance  and  ne- 
cessity of  the  inquiry.  Institutions  of  the  popular  form  re- 
quire, more  than  those  of  other  forms,  to  be  guarded  by 
ceaseless  and  untiring  vigilance. 

There  is  no  way  of  ascertaining  with  precision  what  pro- 
portion of  the  Roman  Catholic  educational  institutions  in 
this  country  are  under  Jesuit  direction  and  management. 
That  the  number  is  large  may  be  inferred  from  a  boast 
made,  not  long  ago,  by  the  editor  of  a  newspaper  zealously 
devoted  to  the  interests  of  that  order.  With  extraordinary 
vehemence,  and  with  some  talent  for  the  dogmatic  and  de- 
clamatory style  of  writing,  he  has  industriously  employed 
his  columns  to  advance  the  cause  of  the  papacy  in  the 
United  States;  to  bring  about  the  destruction  and  over- 
throw of  Protestantism;  and  to  elevate  the  pope  to  an 
equality  with  God,  in  the  government  of  all  human  affairs ! 
With  an  air  of  self-satisfied  pride  and  arrogance,  he  an- 
nounced that  these  followers  of  Loyola,  who  have,  in  the 
course  of  their  history,  been  driven  out  of  every  Roman 
Catholic  country  on  account  of  the  enormity  of  their  offenses 
against  society,  have  now  twelve  colleges  under  their  charge; 
and  that  "  it  is  clear  that  the  Catholic  intellectuality  of  the 
land  depends  almost  entirely  on  these  institutions.  Had 
they  never  been  opened  here,  there  had  been  a  dense  state 
of  darkness  over  us  all;  were  they  closed  to-morrow,  an 
eclipse  would  set  in  which  it  would  be  impossible  to  dissi- 
pate ;  and  if  decay  should  attack  them,  the  brightness  of  the 
Catholic  name  in  the  United  States  would  be  soon  a  dis- 
solved glory.  "(^) 

In  a  subsequent  number  of  this  same  paper,  it  is  stated 
that  "  there  are  about  three  hundred  Jesuit  priests  in  the 
United  States" — that,  in  addition  to  the  above  colleges, 
there  is  "one  immense  scholasticate,  or  house  of  studies,  for 


C)  Saint  Peter:  a  Catholic  Paper  of  the  First  Class,  New  York,  August 
5th,  1871. 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  JESUS  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES.      23 

all  North  America,"  located  in  Maryland,  with  "  about  one 
hundred  and  fifty  young  Jesuits  within  its  walls ;"  and  where 
"a^  length  the  Jesuits  of  this  country  have  commenced  to  edu- 
cate their  scholastics  according  to  the  time-honored  rules  of 
the  society.  Hitherto,"  it  is  said,  "  the  demand  for  profes- 
sors and  priests  has  been  so  urgent  that  this  could  not  have 
been  easily  done;  but  the  lonoj-wished-for  beginning  is  now 
at  last  made,  and  nothing  will  be  suffered  to  interfere  with 
the  scholastic  in  going  to  his  studies  at  the  proper  time,  and 

in  completing  them  in  all  their  extent,  variety,  and  rigor 

The  result  in  a  few  years  will  be  seen  all  over  the  land."(*) 

We  may  reasonably  expect  that  the  numbers  of  this  cele- 
brated society  in  the  United  States  will  now  be  rapidly  in- 
creased by  emigration.  Their  suppression  by  the  Prussian 
Government,  their  like  fate  in  Italy,  their  difficulties  in 
Bavaria  and  Switzerland  growing  out  of  their  resistance  to 
the  public  authorities,  their  expulsion  from  Guatemala, 
and  their  probable  expulsion  from  all  the  countries  where 
they  have  been  longest  and  best  known,  and  where  the  ob- 
noxious principles  of  their  order,  and  its  insidious  workings, 
are  understood,  will  probably  cause  them  to  seek  refuge  in 
this  country;  where,  under  the  license  of  our  Protestant  and 
tolerant  institutions,  they  may  hope  to  give  new  life  to  their 
organization  and  perpetuate  its  existence.  The  field  is  an 
inviting  one  — rich  in  every  thing  that  attracts  —  and  we 
must  not  suppose  that  they  will  be  slow  to  occupy  it;  for 
even  the  Jesuit,  when  driven  away  from  the  Roman  Catho- 
lic nations  and  covered  by  them  with  obloquy  and  reproach, 
can  find  shelter  under  our  Constitution  and  laws.  The  only 
price  he  is  expected  to  pay  is  fidelity  to  the  fundamental 
principles  upon  which  our  Government  has  been  founded. 
With  less  than  this  we  have  no  right  to  be  content;  and 
must  not  be. 

There  are  very  few  thoughtful  minds  that  have  not  been 
impressed  by  the  fact  that  these  educational  influences  are, 
with  only  occasional  and  rare  exceptions,  under  the  imme- 
diate direction  of  foreigners — of  men  educated  and  trained 

(*)  Saint  Peter :  a  Catholic  Paper  of  the  First  Class,  New  York,  August 
26th,  1871. 


24  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

by  the  papacy  for  the  express  purpose.  Why  is  this  ?  Why 
is  it  that  only  those  who  are  thus  prepared  for  the  work — 
with  all  the  peculiar  opinions,  prejudices,  and  habits  of 
thought  which  grow  out  of  and  belong  to  the  papal  system, 
as  understood  at  the  Vatican  in  Rome — are  specially  and 
almost  exclusively  chosen  to  teach  Roman  Catholicism  in 
the  United  States?  Unquestionably,  there  is  so.me  reason 
for  it.  And  it  would  seem  to  be  the  only  satisfactory  ex- 
planation of  such  a  fact,  that,  in  the  opinion  of  the  ecclesi- 
astical authorities  of  Rome,  there  is  so  direct  an  antagonism 
between  the  papacy  and  a  popular  form  of  government  like 
ours,  that  they  do  not  suppose  it  possible  for  both  systems 
to  exist  permanently  together ;  and,  therefore,  have  selected 
these  foreigners  as  the  most  suitable  and  competent  agents 
to  carry  on  the  work  of  substituting  other  institutions  for 
ours — institutions  more  congenial  to  them,  and  more  in  har- 
mony with  the  papal  views  of  government. 

This  precautionary  measure  of  ecclesiastical  policy,  care- 
fully designed  for  the  achievement  of  future  results,  has 
borne  some  fruits  already.  We  see  this  in  the  fact  that  the 
members  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  in  the  United  States 
appear  to-day  to  be  more  formidably  and  compactly  united 
in  supporting  and  defending  all  the  pretensions  of  the  papa- 
cy than  are  the  Roman  Catholic  populations  of  any  of  the 
nations  of  Europe.  Among  the  most  intelligent  of  the  lat- 
ter— those  who  have  become  familiar,  from  long  observation 
and  direct  intercourse,  with  the  papal  system — the  founda- 
tions of  that  system  have  been  destroyed,  papal  concordats 
have  been  indignantly  and  contemptuously  revoked,  papal 
bulls  of  anathema  and  excommunication  have  been  defied, 
and  the  ecclesiastical  right  to  proclaim  and  enforce  the  de- 
cree of  papal  infallibility  has  been  courageously  and  success- 
fully resisted.  And  yet,  in  this  country,  we  are  furnished 
almost  daily  with  renewed  evidences  of  the  enormous  in- 
crease of  hierarchical  power,  and  of  a  blind  and  humiliating 
submission  to  the  mediaeval  doctrines  of  the  Encyclical  and 
Syllabus  of  Pope  Pius  IX.;  and  the  extreme  demands  of  the 
Jesuit  and  Ultramontane  royalists  of  Europe.  Many  thou- 
sands of  the  Roman  Catholics  of  Europe,  although  living 
under  monarchical  institutions,  have  the  intrepidity  to  disa- 


A  SEVERE  BLOW  TO  POLITICAL  FREEDOM.  25 

VOW  the  tame  utterance  of  Augustine :  "  Whe7i  Home  has 
spoken,  that  is  the  end  of  the  matter/^  and  to  assert  their 
right  to  break  loose  from  papal  oppression  and  cling  to  the 
old  Church  of  "the  Fathers."  But  the  bulk  of  those  in  the 
United  States,  while  shielded  and  protected  by  free  institu- 
tions, seem  so  trained  in  this  passive  and  slavish  school  of 
Augustine,  that  they  do  not  yet  realize  how  surely  and  in- 
evitably its  tendency  is  to  make  them  the  mere  tools  of  an 
imperious  and  exacting  hierarchy,  whose  professions  of  mod- 
eration are  both  delusive  and  insincere.  They  seem  either 
incompetent  or  unwilling  to  understand  how  completely 
their  manhood  is  forfeited  by  a  compliance  with  the  require- 
ments of  this  ecclesiastical  system  ;  while,  in  other  respects, 
they  exhibit  commendable  intelligence  and  some  of  the  best 
qualities  of  citizenship.  The  decree  of  papal  infallibility  was 
a  severe  blow  at  the  cause  of  personal  as  well  as  political 
freedom;-  and  by  now  consenting  to  make  it  the  chief  cor- 
ner-stone of  their  ecclesiastical  polity,  they  avow  their  readi- 
ness beforehand  to  acquiesce  in  whatsoever  shall  be  demand- 
ed of  them,  no  matter  how  enormous  it  may  be  and  to  what 
degree  of  humiliation  it  may  reduce  them.  There  is  no  king 
now  upon  any  throne  who  sets  forth  his  pretensions  in  more 
imperious  tones  than  Pope  Pius  IX. ;  yet  they  crouch  at  his 
feet  as  submissively  as  the  slave  at  the  feet  of  his  task-mas- 
ter. When  he  insists — as  other  popes  have  done  before  him 
— that  God  has  given  him  "  full  power  over  the  whole  world, 
both  in  ecclesiastical  and  civil  affairs,"  and  that  to  maintain 
the  contrary  is  impious  and  heretical,  they  give  their  open 
assent,  or  tame  acquiescence  to  this  odious  doctrine,  though 
it  may  do  violence  to  their  most  cherished  and  preconceived 
opinions.  It  is  wonderful  that  such  men  do  not  profit  more 
by  that  experience  which  comes  from  intercourse  with  the 
world ;  that  they  do  not  realize  that  multitudes  of  their 
brethren,  who  once  supported  the  cause  of  the  papacy,  have 
abandoned  it,  on  account  of  the  very  things  to  which  they 
submit;  and  that  the  governments  hitherto  most  obedient 
to  the  pope  have  passed  out  of  his  hands  and  from  under  his 
control.  How  is  it  possible  for  them  to  shut  their  eyes  so 
completely  as  they  seem  to  do  to  the  movements  of  the  mod- 
ern nations?    Spain,  formerly  the  most  devoted  of  all  of 


26  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

them  to  papal  supremacy,  has,  within  a  few  years,  made  her 
queen  a  fugitive,  because  she  w^as  the  mere  creature  of  an 
insolent  priesthood ;  has  weakened  the  power  of  that  same 
priestliood,  because  it  had  been  trained  in  the  school  of  the 
infamous  and  despised  Inquisition ;  and  has  advanced  so  far 
toward  a  higher  national  development  as  to  excite  the  hope 
in  all  liberal  minds  that  she  may  be  ultimately  able  to  throw 
off  entirely  the  leaden  weight  of  ultramontanism.  France 
withdrew  her  military  support  from  the  papal  throne,  in  or- 
der to  humiliate  a  rival  Protestant  power,  and  she  and  the 
papacy  both  went  down  into  a  common  wreck;  and  if  she 
rises  again  under  the  papal  flag,  it  will  be  only  to  dig  still 
deeper  the  grave  into  which  all  her  aspirations  of  national 
glory  will  be  buried.  Austria  has  set  aside  her  concordat 
with  the  pope,  and  proclaimed  entire  freedom  of  religious  be- 
lief; and  has  made  herself  the  ally  of  the  bitterest  enemies 
of  Pius  IX.  Bavaria  has  refused  to  permit  the  dogma  of  in- 
fallibility to  be  proclaimed  in  her  dominions,  because  it  is 
opposed  to  the  fundamental  articles  of  her  constitution, 
"  and  would  place  in  jeopardy  the  rights  of  the  non-Catholics 
of  the  country."  The  open  collision  between  Teutonic  and 
Latin  ideas  has  consolidated  the  Germanic  states  by  the 
triumph  of  the  former;  and  left  no  hope  for  the  papacy 
throughout  all  Germany,  unless  reaction  could  be  won  by 
the  impossible  ascendency  of  the  odious  principles  of  Jesu- 
itism. Even  Italy,  at  the  very  door  of  the  Vatican,  has 
snatched  the  sceptre  of  temporal  dominion  from  the  hands 
of  the  pope,  invited  Protestant  churches  and  schools  to  be 
opened  in  Rome,  confiscated  the  property  of  the  rich  monas- 
tic orders,  and  appropriated  the  Quirinal  and  other  papal 
palaces  to  the  uses  of  the  state.  There  is  not  left  in  all  the 
earth  a  single  government  with  either  the  inclination  or  the 
power  to  defend  the  papacy,  nor  a  single  square  mile  of  ter- 
ritory over  which  its  temporal  sceptre  can  be  wielded.  And 
while  all  these  things  are  consummated  facts  in  history,  and 
others  of  kindred  import  are  rapidly  transpiring  ;  while  these 
Roman  Catholic  populations  of  Europe  are  beginning  to 
breathe  more  like  free  men,  and  are  preparing  for  higher  de- 
grees of  progress  than  they  have  yet  attained — the  followers 
of  the  papacy  in  the  United  States,  with  creditable  excep- 


PAPAL  OPPOSITION  TO  POPULAR  GOVERNMENT.       27 

tions,-  are  concentrating  their  exertions  with  wonderful  una- 
nimity, in  order  to  reforge  the  discarded  fetters  of  papal 
tyranny,  and  to  manacle  with  them  the  limbs  of  the  freest 
and  happiest  population  upon  earth !  Do  not  these  events 
teach  a  philosophy  which  it  becomes  the  American  people 
to  understand  ?  Manifestly,  they  will  fail  in  duty  to  them- 
selves, their  country,  and  the  age,  if  they  do  not  endeavor  to 
understand  it. 

We  should  not  fail  to  keep  in  mind  the  distinction,  which 
undoubtedly  exists,  between  the  hierarchy  and  the  laity. 
Among  the  latter  there  are,  beyond  all  question,  a  large 
number  of  pious  and  sincere  Christians,  who  follow  the 
teachings  of  their  Church  with  honest  and  pure  intentions, 
and  who  are  equally  honest  and  sincere  in  their  support  of 
our  republican  and  popular  institutions,  because  they  think 
they  see  nothing  in  either  incompatible  with  the  other. 
During  the  late  rebellion  many  of  these  went  into  the  na- 
tional armies,  willingly  and  promptly,  and  were  as  brave 
and  zealous  as  any  others  in  defending  the  nation's  life  and 
the  integrity  of  the  Union.  But  it  can  not  be  honestly  de- 
nied that  the  direct  tendency,  during  that  same  crisis,  of  all 
that  came  from  Rome  was  to  give  "aid  and  comfort"  to 
those  who  were  endeavoring  to  overthrow  the  Government. 
And  it  is  equally  true  that  the  open  avowals  of  the  pope,  in 
so  far  as  they  were  designed  to  have  political  significance, 
had  also  the  same  effect.  In  no  other  way  can  the  fact  be 
accounted  for,  that  so  large  a  number  of  Roman  Catholic 
priests  in  this  country  sympathized  with  all  the  measures 
which  were  designed  to  break  up  the  Union  and  destroy  our 
institutions.  All  their  ecclesiastical  training  is  so  conducted 
as  to  prepare  them  for  opposition  to  a  popular  form  of  gov- 
ernment, and  for  giving  preference  to  monarchical  princi- 
ples. They  exhibit  abundant  proof  of  this  at  all  times  when 
collisions  occur  between  the  people  and  their  monarchs  who 
profess  to  govern  by  "divine  right,"  always  opposing  the 
former  and  taking  sides  with  the  latter.  They  could  not 
pay  obedience  to  the  desires  and  commands  of  the  pope  in 
any  other  way.  Nor  would  he  consider  their  obedience  to 
him  complete,  such  as  their  ecclesiastical  obligations  impose 
upon  them,  unless  they  were  always  and  everywhere  ready 


28  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

to  go  to  this  extent.  He  measures  their  fidelity  to  him  by 
the  readiness  with  which  they  adopt  and  promulgate  these 
sentiments.  Pius  IX.,  since  he  threw  himself  into  the  arms 
of  the  Jesuits,  has  so  frequently  avowed  his  hatred  of  a  gov- 
ernment of  the  people,  and  his  fondness  for  monarchy,  as  to 
leave  no  doubt  upon  any  properly  informed  mind  about  the 
condition  in  which  he  would  place  the  nations,  if  he  pos- 
sessed the  power  to  regulate  their  affairs  and  construct  their 
forms  of  government.  He  would  "  pluck  up  "  and  destroy 
every  constitution  or  law  which  gives  the  people  the  right 
to  frame  their  own  institutions  so  as  to  reflect  their  own 
will,  and  would  require  the  whole  world  to  recognize  and 
adopt  the  doctrine  of  the  "  divine  right  of  kings  "  to  govern 
all  the  nations  in  obedience  to  the  pontifical  mandates.  He 
demands  of  his  hierarchy  and  all  the  officers  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  in  every  country  and  under  all  circum- 
stances and  conditions,  not  merely  that  they  shall  maintain 
these  sentiments  themselves,  but  shall  carefully  instruct  all 
the  faithful  to  do  the  same ;  conceding  to  them  only  such  a 
degree  of  discretion  as  allows  them  to  regulate  their  utter- 
ances by  expediency.  From  both  these  classes — both  priests 
and  laymen — the  pope  exacts  implicit  obedience,  without  in- 
quiry or  any  appeal  to  their  own  reason.  If  it  shall  be 
yielded  by  the  Roman  Catholic  population  of  the  United 
States,  and  if  it  is  really  the  design  that  the  papal  exactions 
shall  be  carried  to  the  extent  of  interfering  with  their  obli- 
gations as  citizens,  there  is  no  difficulty  in  seeing  that  they 
may  be  ultimately  led  into  an  attitude  of  antagonism  to  our 
form  of  government.  At  this  point  lies  the  danger  most 
seriously  to  be  apprehended  by  the  people  of  the  United 
States — a  danger  which  underlies  many,  if  not  all,  of  the 
questions  by  w^hich  the  nation  is  periodically  excited. 
While  we  may  not  now  be  able  to  anticipate  the  precise 
time  or  form  of  its  appearing,  we  should  not  be  unprepared 
to  meet  it,  if,  by  any  possibility,  it  shall  be  hereafter  precip- 
itated upon  us. 

By  our  form  of  government  all  the  laws  have  their 
source,  both  theoretically  and  practically,  in  the  will  of  the 
people  ;  and  are,  therefore,  of  human  origin.  The  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States  was  ordained  and  established  by 


ENDEAVOR  TO  SUBVERT  OUR  INSTITUTIONS.  29 

the  people, "  in  order  to  form  a  more  perfect  union,  establish 
justice,  insure  domestic  tranquillity,  provide  for  the  common 
defense,  promote  the  general  welfare,  and  secure  the  bless- 
ings of  liberty  to  ourselves  and  our  posterity.''^  Consider- 
ed collectively,  these  objects  include  every  thing  necessary 
to  the  happiness,  prosperity,  and  elevation  of  a  nation ;  and, 
with  the  supreme  and  sovereign  authority  of  the  American 
people  to  preserve  them  for  nearly  a  century,  they  have, 
thus  far,  proved  to  be  much  more  conducive  to  these  ends 
than  any  of  the  forms  of  government  where  kings,  or  popes, 
or  potentates  of  any  name  or  rank,  have  been  regarded  as 
the  only  "fountains  of  justice."  This  belief  can  not  be  de- 
lusion, in  view  of  the  present  condition  of  the  world  and  of 
the  practical  results  before  us.  If  it  is,  it  is  a  delusion  which 
the  people  of  the  United  States  have  cherished,  and  will,  it 
is  hoped,  continue  to  cherish,  with  all  the  fervor  of  the  in- 
tensest  patriotism.  It  would  be  unjust  to  say  that  among 
the  number  of  those  who  do  cherish  it  there  are  not  many 
Roman  Catholic  laymen,  and  now  and  then  a  priest,  who 
have  found  shelter  under  our  institutions  from  European 
misgovernment  and  monarchical  oppression.  There  are,  un- 
doubtedly, many  of  this  class  who  do  not  believe,  when  told, 
that  the  papacy  is  now  endeavoring,  by  the  most  active  and 
persistent  efforts,  to  substitute  an  ecclesiastical  government 
for  this  government  of  the  people — a  grand  "Holy  Empire" 
for  this  free  and  popular  republic  which  it  has  cost  so  much 
blood  and  treasure  to  establish  and  maintain.  Restrained 
by  the  sincerity  of  their  own  intentions  from  suspecting  oth- 
ers, they  never  stop  a  moment  to  inquire  to  what  probable 
or  possible  point  they  may  be  led  by  the  uninquiring  obedi- 
ence to  their  hierarchy  whicTi  is  demanded  of  them.  And 
the  hierarchy,  taking  advantage  of  their  silence,  and  con- 
struing it  into  acquiescence,  let  no  opportunity  escape  to 
build  up  an  ecclesiastical  power,  comprehensive  enough  to 
absorb  all  those  powers  of  the  Government  and  the  people 
which  the  pope  shall  consider  to  be  in  opposition  to  the  law 
of  God ! 

These  foreign -born  ecclesiastics  have  moved  forward  in 

C)  Preamble  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 


30  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

their  work  with  great  caution  and  circumspection.  When- 
ever they  have  been  enabled  to  employ  the  pen  of  a  native 
citizen,  they  have  done  so,  in  order  that,  while  secure  in 
their  own  reticence  for  the  time  being,  they  could  observe 
the  eflfect  produced.  As  early  as  1849,  Dr.  O.  A.  Brownson 
— who  had  abandoned  Protestantism  under  the  pretense  that 
it  was  necessary  to  human  happiness  that  the  whole  world 
should  be  subjected  to  ecclesiastical  government — did  not 
hesitate  to  utter,  in  behalf  of  the  papacy,  such  doctrines  as 
would,  if  established  in  this  country,  upheave  the  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States,  and  that  of  every  State  in  the 
Union,  from  their  foundations.  In  an  article  on  "Authority 
and  Liberty,"  he  pointed  out  the  absolute  and  plenary  au- 
thority of  God  over  all  things  spiritual  and  temporal;  and 
denied  that  any  body  or  community  of  men,  as  men,  "has 
any  rightful  authority  either  in  spirituals  or  temporals." 
As  a  consequence,  he  insisted  that  "  all  merely  human  au- 
thorities are  usurpations,  and  their  acts  are  without  obliga- 
tion, null  and  void  from  the  beginning:"  in  other  and  more 
practical  words,  that  the  authority  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States  over  the  Government  is  usurpation,  and  that 
all  the  constitutions  and  laws  they  have  ordained  and  enact- 
ed by  this  authority  "are  without  obligation,  null  and  void 
from  the  beginning !"  All  "  right  to  command,"  w^hether 
of  parent,  pastor,  prince,  individuals,  or  communities,  he  cen- 
tres in  the  pope^  as  "  the  vicar  of  God  "  on  earth,  and  in  him 
alone.  He  insists  that,  through  the  pope  and  by  virtue  of 
his  authority,  "  religion  must  found  the  state  ;"  and  that  the 
only  "absolute  and  unlimited  freedom"  consists  in  "abso- 
lute and  unconditional  subjection  to  God ;"  that  is,  to  his 
vicar  the  pope,  who  alone  is  authorized  to  declare  his  will. 
Every  thing  contrary  to  this — notwithstanding  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States  and  that  of  every  State  in  the 
Union  are  contrary  to  it — he  pronounces  to  be  "nonsense  or 
blasphemy."^) 

This  author  is  so  much  dissatisfied  with  the  structure  of 
the  government  under  which  he  was  born,  and  by  which  he 
is  allowed  the  liberty  of  speech  and  of  the  press,  even  to 

O  "Brownson's  Essays,"  pp.  278,  279. 


DR.  BROWNSON'S  INTOLERANCE.  31 

the  extent  of  assailing  its  most  cherished  provisions,  as  to 
insist  that  the  papacy  alone  possesses  the  only  Divine  au- 
'thority,  ever  conferred  upon  an  earthly  tribunal,  to  make 
laws  for  the  government  of  mankind ;  and  that  in  submit- 
ting to  it  we  submit  to  Qod,^''  and  are  freed  from  all  human 
authority f*  because  whatsoever  it  teaches  and  commands, 
in  reference  to  all  spiritual  and  temporal  things,  must  be 
and  is  infallibly  true.  Therefore,  "  in  the  temporal  order," 
according  to  him,  the  authority  of  the  papacy  "  is  nothing 
but  the  assertion  over  the  state  of  the  Divine  sovereignty," 
which  it  represents.  And,  hence,  all  the  authority  derived 
from  the  people  which  does  not  bring  the  state  into  this 
condition  of  obedience  and  subserviency  to  the  papacy  "  is 
despotic,  because  it  is  authority  without  right^  will  unreg- 
ulated by  reason,  power  disjoined  from  justice."  And,  fur- 
ther pursuing  the  same  idea  in  opposition  to  the  fundament- 
al principle  of  all  popular  and  representative  government, 
he  continues  thus : 

" Withdraw  the  supremacy  of  the  Church  from  the 

temporal  order,  and  you  deprive  the  state  of  that  sanction ; 
by  asserting  that  it  does  not  hold  from  God,  and  is  not 
amenable  to  his  law,  you  give  the  state  simply  a  human 
basis^  and  have  in  it  only  a  human  authority^  which  has  no 
right  to  govern^  and  which  it  is  intolerable  tyranny  to  compel 
me  to  obeyP 

He  then  pursues  another  method  of  reasoning  which, 
under  color  of  a  sinsjle  concession,  bring:s  him  to  the  same 
conclusions;  the  main  object,  that  is,  the  absolute  and  uni- 
versal power  of  the  papacy,  never  being  lost  sight  of. 
Agreeing  that  the  state  has  some  authority  within  the  lim- 
its of  the  law  of  nature,  he  concedes  to  it  the  right  to  act 
"without  ecclesiastical  restraint  or  interference,"  when  and 
only  so  long  as  it  confines  itself  within  the  scope  of  that 
law.  But  he  puts  such  limitations  upon  even  this  restrict- 
ed right  as  to  render  it  of  no  avail  for  any  of  the  purposes  of 
an  independent  government,  by  insisting  that  as  the  papacy 
holds  its  authority  directly  from  God,  and  exercises  it  under 
his  revealed  law,  which  includes  the  law  of  nature,  it  is, 
therefore,  the  only  competent  judge  of  infractions  upon  both 
the  revealed  and  the  natural  law.     Speaking  of  the  Church 


32  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

— and  since  the  decree  of  papal  infallibility  he,  of  course, 
means  the  pope,  who  represents  and  absorbs  all  the  author- 
ity of  the  Church — he  says: 

"  She  is,  under  God,  the  supreme  judge  of  both  laws,  which 
for  her  are  but  one  law  ;  and  hence  she  takes  cognizance, 
in  her  tribunals,  of  the  breaches  of  the  natural  law  as  well 
as  of  the  revealed,  and  has  the  right  to  take  cognizance  b]/ 
nations  as  well  as  of  its  breaches  by  individuals,  by  the 
prince  as  well  as  the  subject,  for  it  is  the  supreme  law  for 
both.  The  state  is,  therefore,  only  an  inferior  court,  bound 
to  receive  the  law  from  the  Supreme  Court,  and  liable  to  have 
its  decrees  reversed  on  appeaV\^) 

These  sentiments  were  not  uttered  from  mere  impulse,  or 
in  the  heat  of  animated  discussion ;  they  were  carefully 
formed  and  elaborated  in  the  closet,  and  sent  forth,  with  full 
deliberation  and  hierarchical  sanction,  to  prepare  the  minds 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  part  of  our  population  for  events 
which  have  since  transpired,  and  which  were  then,  doubt- 
less, anticipated.  They  had,  undoubtedly,  the  full  approv- 
al of  the  highest  authorities  of  the  Church  in  the  IJnited 
States ;  for  so  wonderfully  perfect  is  the  plan  of  papal  organ- 
ization, that  their  author  would  not  have  acquired  the  dis- 
tinguished position  he  has  since  reached  in  the  Church,  if  he 
had  ventured  to  commit  the  papacy  wrongfully  upon  ques- 
tions of  so  much  delicacy  and  importance.  Dr.  Brownson 
had  prepared  himself  for  the  adoption  of  these  views  by 
previous  study  of  the  papal  system,  and  was,  therefore,  as  a 
native  citizen,  the  most  fit  person  to  give  them  public  utter- 
ance; it  being  very  naturally  supposed,  no  doubt,  that  the 
people  of  this  country  would  silently  submit  to  harsh  criti- 
cism upon  the  principles  of  their  government  when  made  by 
a  native,  when  the  same  criticism  made  by  a  foreigner  would 
arouse  their  just  indignation.  An  intelligent  and  educated 
mind  like  his  could  not  fail  to  see  that  the  principles  he 
enunciated  were  diametrically  opposed  to  the  whole  theory 
of  American  government,  and  that  the  logical  consequence 
of  their  supremacy  in  the  United  States  would  be  the  end 
of  popular  government,  by  the  substitution  for  it  of  one  in 

C)  "Brownson's  Essays,"  pp.  282-284. 


RELIGION  WHICH  IS  "TO  COMMAND."  33 

the  ecclesiastical  form.  He  had,  but  a  few  years  ago,  an- 
nounced that  "  the  Roman  Catholic  religion  assumes,  as  its 
point  of  departure,  that  it  is  instituted,  not  to  be  taken  care 
of  by  the  people,  but  to  take  care  of  the  people ;  not  to  be 
governed  by  them,  but  to  gover7i  them  f*  and  from  this 
stand -point  of  deadly  hostility  to  the  institutions  under 
which  he  was  born,  and  which  allowed  him  the  liberty  he 
was  so  unpatriotically  abusing,  it  was  but  a  single  step  to 
such  bold  and  audacious  avowals  as  the  following : 

"  The  people  need  governing^  and  must  be  governed. .... 
They  must  have  a  master The  religion  which  is  to  an- 
swer our  purpose  must  be  above  the  people,  and  able  to  com- 
mand THEM The  first  lesson  to  the  child  is,  obey;  the 

first  and  last  lesson  to  the  people,  individually  and  collective- 
ly, is,  OBEY ;  and  there  is  no  obedience  where  there  is  no  au- 
thority to  enjoin  it The  Roman  Catholic  religion,  then, 

is  necessary  to  sustain  popular  liberty,  because  popular  lib- 
erty can  be  sustained  only  by  a  religion  free  from  popular  con- 
trol, above  the  people,  speaking  from  above  and  able  to  com- 
mand them  ;  and  such  a  religion  is  the  Roman  Catholic 

In  this  sense,  we  wish  this  countey  to  come  under  the 
Pope  of  Rome.  As  the  visible  head  of  the  Church,  the  spir- 
itual authority  which  Almighty  God  has  instituted  to  teach 
and  govern  the  nations,  we  assert  his  supremacy,  and  tell  our 
countrymen  that  we  would  have  them  submit  to  him.  They 
may  flare  up  at  this  as  much  as  they  please,  and  write  as 
many  alarming  and  abusive  editorials  as  they  choose,  or  can 
find  time  and  space  to  do — they  will  not  move  us,  or  relieve 
themselves  from  the  obligation  Almighty  God  has  placed 
them  under  of  obeyiyig  the  authority  of  the  Catholic  Church,, 
pope  and  alVi^) 

When  Pope  Gregory  XVI. ,  some  years  ago,  uttered  the 
saying,  "Out  of  the  Roman  States,  there  is  no  country  where 
I  am  pope,  except  the  United  States,^'  he  undoubtedly  cher- 
ished the  idea  which  filled  the  mind  of  Dr.  Brownson  when 
he  penned  these  extraordinary  sentiments ;  that  is,  that  pop- 
ular liberty,  in  its  true  sense,  can  only  exist  where  the  peo- 
ple are  reduced  to  a  condition   of  political  vassalage,  and 


O  "Brownson's  Essays,"  pp.  380-383. 
3 


34  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

where  there  is  a  power  superior  to  them,  with  authority 
sufficient  to  command  and  govern  them !  With  both  of 
them,  as  well  as  with  many  Roman  Catholic  writers  who 
have  similarly  expressed  themselves,  such  sentiments  grew 
out  of  the  existing  condition  of  the  nations,  and  the  decay- 
ing fortunes  of  the  papacy.  In  all  the  countries  professedly 
Roman  Catholic,  the  Church  was  restricted  and  hampered 
in  what  were  asserted  to  be  its  rights,  on  account  of  its  close 
alliance  with  despotism ;  while  in  this  country,  owing  to  the 
liberality  of  our  institutions,  it  is  "  legally  free,"  and  is  left, 
without  the  interference  of  the  law,  to  the  uninterrupted 
pursuit  of  its  ecclesiastical  policy.  (")  Manifestly,  it  is  be- 
cause the  nations  of  Europe,  hitherto  Roman  Catholic,  have 
taken  away  from  "  the  vicar  of  God  "  the  power  to  subordi- 
nate the  laws  of  the  State  to  the  canon  laws  of  the  Church, 
which  have  been  constructed  with  sole  reference  to  papal 
supremacy,  that  the  hope  of  rebuilding  this  power  in  the 
United  States  has  been  excited.  Paralyzed  by  the  defensive 
policy  of  the  nations  where  the  oppressive  character  of  the 
papal  system  has  been  long  observed  and  understood,  and 
where  its  opposition  to  the  rights  of  the  people  has  been 
most  keenly  felt,  all  these  representatives  of  the  papacy  cul- 
tivate the  idea  in  their  own  minds,  and  are  endeavoring  to 
instill  it  into  the  minds  of  their  followers,  that  they  may 
avail  themselves  of  the  tolerance  of  our  institutions  to  re- 
construct their  repudiated  system  of  ecclesiastical  absolutism 
in  this  country.  The  present  pope,  Pius  IX.,  pressed  much 
nearer  to  the  wall  than  was  Gregory  XVI.,  and,  doubtless, 
flattered  at  the  thought  that  the  bold  utterances  of  Dr. 
Brownson  and  others  have  yet  received  no  popular  rebuke, 
has  allowed  the  same  hope  to  obtain  possession  of  his  mind. 
When,  at  his  command,  the  defenders  of  the  papacy  speak 
of  the  Church  as  being  "  legally  free  "  in  the  United  States, 
he  and  they  understand  it  to  mean  that  it  is  free,  under  our 
form  of  government,  to  concentrate  and  vitalize  all  its  efforts 
and  the  best  faculties  of  its  priesthood,  to  consummate  all 
the  ends  and  objects  they  aim  at.  They  do  not  mean  that 
the  people  here  are  to  be  converted  to  the  Roman  Catholic 

O  *'  Protestantism  and  Infidelity,"  by  Dr.  Weninger,  a  Jesuit,  p.  262. 


INSIDIOUSNESS  OF  A  FOREIGN-BORN  PRIESTHOOD.     35 

faith  by  free  discussion  and  appeals  to  reason — these  are 
methods  of  procedure  forbidden  to  them.  But  they  do 
mean  just  what  Dr.  Brownson  has  averred ;  that  the  pope^ 
without  any  human  authority  to  challenge  or  arraign  him, 
shall  be  at  liberty  to  build  up  a  hierarchy,  irresponsible  to 
the  laws  enacted  by  the  people,  with  authority  and  powers 
above  those  of  the  National  and  State  governments,  and  suf- 
ficient to  compel  passive  obedience  to  all  papal  decrees  and  to 
the  canon  laws  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  in  such  form 
as  he,  with  the  crown  of  the  Cgesars  upon  his  brow,  shall 
promulgate  them  from  his  papal  and  imperial  city  of  Rome ! 
These  matters  are  of  sufficient  import  to  arrest  public  at- 
tention ;  and  it  is  time  that  the  people  of  the  United  States 
understood  the  manner  in  which  a  foreign-born  priesthood, 
educated  for  the  purpose,  are  employing  the  freedom  grant- 
ed them  by  our  institutions  —  what  they  mean  when  they 
write  and  talk  about  the  freedom  of  their  church — and  what 
the  end  may  be  if  they  shall  quietly  and  unresistingly  sub- 
mit to  have  replanted  here  the  papal  imperialism  which  has 
been  expelled  from  every  enlightened  nation  in  Europe. 
When  a  Protestant  talks  of  freedom,  he  means  the  self-gov- 
ernment of  the  people  in  all  their  civil  affairs ;  when  the 
papal  hierarchy  talk  of  it,  they  mean  the  freedom  of  the  pa- 
pacy to  govern  the  world,  through  the  pope  and  themselves, 
as  his  agents  and  auxiliaries.  And  when,  in  this  country, 
we  speak  of  the  "  liberty  of  conscience,"  we  mean  that  every 
man  shall  be  permitted  to  worship  God  as  his  own  personal 
convictions  of  duty  shall  dictate.  But  the  papal  hierarchy 
have  no  such  meaning,  and  intend  nothing  of  this  sort. 
With  them  "  liberty  of  conscience  "  consists  merely  of  "  the 
right  to  embrace^  profess^  and  practice  the  Catholic  religion^'' 
in  a  Protestant  country ;  not  the  right  to  embrace,  profess, 
and  practice  the  Protestant  religion  in  a  Roman  Catholic 
country !  And  why  do  they  not  concede  this  latter  right, 
while  demanding  the  former  with  such  steady  persistence? 
The  answer  with  them  is  always  at  hand,  when  it  is  expe- 
dient to  make  it:  because  '•'•  infidelity''''  is  "the  last  logical 
consequence  of  Protestantism  ;"(^°)   and,  therefore,  Protest- 

('")  "Protestantism  and  Infidelity,"  by  Dr.  Weninger,  a  Jesuit,  p.  278. 


36  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

antism,  being  thus  opposed  to  the  law  of  God,  can  not  be 
tolerated  or  compromised  with  without  sin,  and  must  be  ex- 
terminated ! 

These  ideas  are  so  plainly  and  emphatically  expressed  by 
The  CatholiG  World  of  New  York,  that  the  article  in  which 
they  are  found  —  entitled  "A  Plea  for  Liberty  of  Con- 
science"— is  well  worthy  a  careful  examination  and  serious 
reflection.(")  While  it  apologizes  to  those  of  its  "  Catholic 
readers  "  who  may  take  offense  at  its  defensive  tone — as  if 
it  were  an  act  of  indiscretion  to  defend  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  otherwise  than  by  the  dogmatic  assumption  of  its 
exclusiveness  and  supremacy — it  exhausts  its  ingenuity  in 
the  discussion  of  the  question,  "  What  constitutes  a  violation 
of  just  and  rightful  liberty  of  conscience?"  To  such  of  its 
readers  as  presuppose  "the  Catholic  religion  to  be  the  true 
one,"  it  addresses  this  expressive  and  violent  language : 

"  Of  course,  in  the  last  analysis,  we  must  come  back  upon 
the  fundamental  principle  that  the  law  of  God  is  supreme, 
and  must  be  obeyed  at  all  hazards,  let  come  what  will.  No 
matter  what  human  law^  what  private  interests,  what  dread- 
ful penalties  may  stand  in  the  way,  God  must  be  obeyed, 
conscience  must  be  followed,  duty  must  be  done.  The  au- 
thority of  the  state  must  be  braved,  human  affections  must  be 
disregarded,  life  must  be  sacrificed,  when  loyalty  to  truth  and 
to  the  will  of  God  requires  it." 

These  sentiments,  when  uttered,  might  have  seemed  com- 
paratively harmless  to  the  casual  reader;  and  they  were 
probably  thus  considered  by  many  of  the  uninitiated  lay- 
men of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  They  are  seem^ingly 
full  of  loyalty  to  the  Christian  faith,  and  yet  that  they  were 
designed  to  have  a  covert  and  latent  significance — well  un- 
derstood by  the  priesthood,  there  can  be  no  reasonable 
doubt,  in  view  of  what  was  then  transpiring  at  Rome. 
Preparations  were  making  for  the  decree  of  papal  infalli- 
bility ;  and  it  was,  doubtless,  considered  necessary,  by  such 
utterances  as  these,  to  put  the  minds  of  the  faithful  in  a  fit 
condition  to  accept,  without  murmur,  this  radical  change  in 
the  doctrines  of  the  Church.     At  that  time,  infallibility  was 

(")  The  Catholic  World,  July,  1868,  vol.  vii..  No.  40,  p.  433. 


PAPAL  INFALLIBILITY  NOT  A  NEW  DOGMA.  37 

no  less  a-  dogma  of  the  Church  than  it  is  now ;  but  it  was 
differently  deposited.  It  was  the  infallibility  of  the  Church, 
when  acting  through  and  by  means  of  the  representative 
authorities  it  has  recognized  for  centuries;  that  is,  councils 
and  popes  conjointly.  Whatever  opinions  contrary  to  this 
may  have  been  expressed  elsewhere,  and  have  generally 
prevailed  among  the  hierarchy,  this  was,  undoubtedly,  the 
belief  of  a  very  large  majority  of  the  lay  members  of  the 
Church  in  the  United  States.  They  both  felt  and  expressed 
for  the  pope  a  feeling  bordering  upon  reverence,  but  had 
never  yet  been  brought  to  the  point  of  accepting  him  as 
possessed  alone  of  all  the  infallibility  they  had  been  accus- 
tomed to  assign  to  the  Church ;  in  other  words,  they  had 
never  consented  to  accept  a  church  organization  entirely  de- 
prived of  all  ordinary  representative  features.  With  them, 
the  old  faith  was  sanctified  by  centuries  of  time ;  and  they 
associated  all  ideas  of  invasion  upon  it  with  heretical  teach- 
ings. Feeling  assured  that  a  deposit  thus  sacred  would  be 
preserved  with  fidelity  by  its  custodians,  and  having  no 
dread  of  any  antagonism  to  it  from  within,  they  exhibited 
their  confidence  by  the  most  deferential  obedience.  What- 
soever came  to  them  with  the  stamp  of  authority  was  will- 
ingly accepted ;  but  they  had  not  yet  learned  to  regard  this 
authority,  in  so  far  as  it  affected  the  fundamentals  of  their 
faith,  as  lodged  elsewhere  than  in  the  collective  body  of 
their  bishops,  acting  conjointly  with  the  pope,  in  the  gener- 
al councils  of  the  whole  Church.  Any  accusation  that  they 
did  so  usually  excited  their  resentment ;  at  all  events,  their 
unqualified  denial.  And  when  this  is  taken  into  account, 
when  it  is  considered  how  few  there  were  who  pretended 
to  believe  the  doctrine  of  papal  infallibility,  it  may  well  be 
supposed  that  these  avowals  of  the  Catholic  World  passed 
unobserved  by  the  ordinary  reader,  at  the  time.  Although 
the  article  may  have  been  read  by  many  Roman  Catholic 
laymen,  it  is  not  probable  that  they  perceived  its  ultimate 
bearing  or  design ;  or,  if  they  did,  they  did  not  suppose  it 
possible  that  any  harm  could  be  done  by  it  to  the  theory 
of  popular  government,  so  long  as  the  faith  and  doctrines 
of  their  Church  were  subject  to  interpretation  only  by  the 
whole  body  of  the  episcopate,  gathered  together  in  general 


38  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

council  from  all  parts  of  the  world,  and  representing  the  en- 
tire Church.  This  view  of  it  would  have  naturally  arisen  in 
the  minds  of  the  honest  and  unsuspecting  members  of  the 
Church — of  that  large  class  who  are  made  credulous  by  the 
excess  of  their  fidelity,  and  who  are  no  more  inclined  to  sus- 
pect others  of  duplicity  than  they  are  to  practice  it  them- 
selves. Yet  it  can  not  now  be  seriously  denied  that  the 
hierarchy  of  the  Church,  or  those  among  them  who  occupied 
the  most  commanding  and  influeijtial  positions,  fully  under- 
stood the  import  and  meaning  of  the  principles  of  church 
polity  so  boldly  proclaimed  by  the  Catholic  World.  The 
prelates  and  priests  knew  that  they  were  expressed  in  re- 
sponse to  the  pope's  Encyclical  and  Syllabus  of  1864,  in  or- 
der to  prepare  the  whole  membership  of  the  Church,  gradu- 
ally but  cautiously,  for  the  decree  of  papal  infallibility ;  for 
the  ultimate  concentration  of  all  the  authority  of  the  church 
in  the  hands  of  the  pope  alone,  at  the  expense  of  the  repre- 
sentative feature  in  the  church  economy;  and  for  the  sub- 
stitution of  his  orders,  decrees,  and  commands,  for  such  as 
heretofore  for  over  eighteen  hundred  years  —  except  when 
papal  usurpation  made  it  otherwise — have  been  considered 
the  law  of  the  Church  when  proceeding  from  the  whole 
body  of  the  Church.  In  no  other  sense  can  these  principles 
be  now  interpreted.  Indeed,  The  Catholic  World  did  not, 
at  the  time  of  their  utterance,  intend  to  leave  much  doubt 
about  its  meaning  in  the  minds  of  the  initiated.  It  intend- 
ed to  place  itself  in  advance  of  others  who  were  slower  to 
move  in  the  direction  indicated  by  the  pope.  Therefore, 
with  the  Encyclical  and  Syllabus  to  dictate  the  sentiment, 
it  was  announced,  in  the  next  number,  that  the pope^  "  as  the 
head  and  mouthpiece  of  the  Catholic  Church,  administers 
its  discipline  and  issues  orders  to  which  every  Catholic,  un- 
der pain  ofsin^  must  yield  obedience."(''^) 

These  are  not  loose  and  idle  sayings;  nor  are  they  ex- 
pressed by  ignorant  and  irresponsible  men.  The  Catholic 
World  is  edited  with  great  ability,  and  possesses  very  high 
literary  merit.  It  is  issued  from  "  The  Catholic  Publication 
House,"  in  New  York,  manifestly  with  episcopal  sanction. 


(")  The  Catholic  World,  August,  18G8,  vol.  vii.,  No.  41,  p.  577. 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ROME  TO  INTERPRET  OUR  LAWS.     39 

And  when  such  a  publication,  with  such  high  indorsement, 
solemnly  and  under  all  its  responsibilities  announces  it  as 
the  doctrine  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  that  disobedi- 
ence to  the  "  orders  "  of  the  pope  is  "  sin  "  against  God,  what 
should  interest  the  American  people  more  than  to  inquire 
whether  it  is  contemplated,  or  is  even  possible,  that  any  of 
these  "  orders  "  should  be  directed  against,  or  shall  threaten 
the  existence  of,  any  of  the  principles  which  enter  into  the 
structure  of  their  government  ?  As  the  prosecution  of  this 
inquiry  progresses,  much  will  appear  well  calculated  to  star- 
tle those  whose  avocations  lead  them  into  other  fields  of 
thouQjht  and  investioration. 

In  the  light  of  the  teachings  thus  far  announced,  and  of 
the  further  fact  that  the  pope's  infallibility  is  now  almost 
universally  recognized  in  the  United  States,  either  by  open 
approval  or  silent  acquiescence,  there  is  no  other  logical  con- 
clusion than  that  the  papal  hierarchy  in  this  country  en- 
tertain the  desire  to  make  our  government  and  laws  con- 
form to  the  laws  of  God,  as  they  shall  be  interpreted  and  an- 
nounced by  the  pope.  They  profess  to  have  been  appointed 
to  this  mission  by  Almighty  God,  and,  stimulated  by  the  zeal 
engendered  by  this  conviction  (the  honesty  of  which  there 
is  no  occasion  to  impeach),  are  undoubtedly  arming  them- 
selves for  the  work  with  all  the  weapons  which  can  be  drawn 
from  the  pontifical  armory.  And  The  Catholic  World,  in 
order  to  incite  the  courage  of  the  assailants,  and  bring  about 
this  result  with  all  possible  expedition,  declares  in  advance 
that  all  "human  laws"  must  be  resisted  when  they  stand 
in  the  way  of  the  grand  achievement ;  that  all  "  private  in- 
terests "  must  be  sacrificed ;  that  the  most  dreadful  "  penal- 
ties "  must  be  incurred  ;  and  that  "  the  authority  of  the  state 
must  be  braved,  human  afiections  must  be  disregarded,  life 
must  be  sacrificed,  when  loyalty  to  truth  and  to  the  will  of 
God  requires  it" — as  the  truth  shall  be  declared,  and  the 
will  of  God  shall  be  announced,  by  the  infallible  and  unerr- 
ing pope! 


40  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 


CHAPTER  II. 

The  Pope  and  Civil  Affairs. — Preparations  to  Make  him  Infallible. — The 
Bishop's  Oath. — National  Council  of  Baltimore. — Their  Theory  of  Gov- 
ernment.— Defense  of  the  Ancient  Rights  of  the  Papacy. — Arraignment 
of  Protestantism  as  Infidelity,  and  a  Failure. — Popular  and  Monarchical 
Government. — Protestant  Toleration  Necessary  to  Popular  Government. 

It  has  come  to  be  an  axiom  among  all  the  advocates  of 
free  government,  that  "  error  ceases  to  be  dangerous  when 
reason  is  left  free  to  combat  it."  But  those  who  support 
the  cause  of  imperialism  maintain  the  opposite  of  this — that 
the  public  mind  and  conscience  are  enlightened  only  in  pro- 
portion as  they  are  submissive  to  some  superior  governing 
power,  sufficiently  strong  to  hold  them  in  obedience. 

The  contest  between  these  opposing  theories  is  one  be- 
tween intelligence  and  ignorance.  In  the  one  case,  society 
is  recognized  as  being  entitled  to  govern  itself  by  laws  of 
its  own  enacting — founded  upon  its  own  will.  In  the  other, 
this  right  is  entirely  denied,  and  it  is  regarded  as  being  fit- 
ted only  for  that  condition  of  inferiority  which  shall  reduce  it 
to  an  unconsciousness  of  its  degradation.  The  civil  institu- 
tions of  the  United  States  are  constructed  upon  the  former 
of  these  theories.  Wheresoever  civil  institutions  have  ex- 
isted in  obedience  to  the  dictation  of  the  papacy,  they  have 
been  constructed  upon  the  latter.  Protestantism,  with  all  its 
elevating  tendencies,  is  the  legitimate  offspring  of  the  one. 
Decrepitude,  decay,  and  disruption  have  been  the  natural 
fruits  of  the  other.  These  considerations  must  be  kept  in 
mind,  in  examining  the  claims  now  set  up  in  behalf  of  the 
papacy,  in  order  that  we  may  have  a  clear  view  of  what 
we  are  required  to  surrender,  and  understand  the  character 
of  the  millennial  feast  to  which  we  are  invited. 

When  Pope  Pius  IX., in  1867,  convened  all  "the  prelates 
of  the  Catholic  world "  in  Rome,  to  witness  the  ceremony 
of  canonizing  saints  —  to  which  their  presence  was  not  at 


EFFORT  AT  PAPAL  OMNIPOTENCY.  41 

all  necessary  —  and  assigned  as  one  of  the  reasons  for  the 
convocation  "  the  extreme  peril  which  threatens  civil^  and, 
above  all,  sacred  things,"(^)  thoughtful  men  —  as  well  Ro- 
man Catholic  laymen  as  Protestants  —  wondered  why  so 
much  expense  should  be  incurred,  and  so  much  labor  per- 
formed, for  an  object  which  could,  of  itself,  confer  no  good 
upon  Christianity  or  the  Church.  And  when  these  same 
Roman  Catholic  laymen  had  their  attention  then  called — 
many  of  them  for  the  first  time  —  to  the  now  celebrated 
Encyclical  and  Syllabus  of  the  pope,  and  saw  their  tendency 
to  arrest  the  progress  of  the  nations,  and  turn  them  back 
toward  the  Middle  Ages,  many  of  the  most  intelligent  of 
them  did  not  hesitate  to  express  their  surprise.  Some  of 
them  put  one  construction,  and  some  another,  upon  the  lan- 
guage of  the  pope ;  while  yet  others,  better  informed  of  the 
motives  of  papal  action,  attempted,  by  imperfect  transla- 
tions and  false  construction,  to  give  it  a  meaning  wholly  at 
variance  with  what  is  now  conceded,  on  all  hands,  to  have 
been  his  design.  But  when  the  late  Vatican  Council  en- 
acted the  decree  which  made  papal  infallibility,  for  the  first 
time,  a  dogma  of  religious  faith,  and  threatened  with  anath- 
ema all  who  should  refuse  to  recognize  the  pope  as  incapa- 
ble of  all  error  in  matters  of  faith  and  morals,  all  further 
disguise  was  thrown  aside,  and  the  world  was  awakened  to 
the  fact  that  these  measures  were  but  the  inauguration  of  a 
deliberately  concerted  effort  to  make  the  papacy  a  power 
so  absorbing  and  omnipotent  that  all  nations  and  peoples 
should  be  held  by  it  in  abject,  passive,  and  humiliating  sub- 
jugation. 

It  would  be  an  unjust  reflection  upon  the  acknowledged 
intelligence  and  sagacity  of  the  papal  hierarchy  in  the 
United  States  to  suppose  that  they  did  not  understand, 
from  the  beginning,  the  end  the  pope  had  in  view,  and  the 
object  he  desired  to  accomplish.  Their  relations  to  him, 
and  their  dependence  upon  him  for  their  official  positions 
and  dignity,  require  that  there  shall  be  no  concealment  be- 
tween them.  The  kind  of  obedience  they  pay  him  renders 
it  necessary  that  they  shall  furnish  him  with  the  most  un- 

Q)  Appletons'  "Annual  Cyclopaedia/^Jfififi,  p,,,,g76. 


42  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

doubted  assurance  that  they  are  always  ready  to  execute 
whatsoever  he  shall  command,  in  the  domam  of  faith  and 
morals,  without  stopping  to  inquire  what  human  laws  or  in- 
stitutions are  in  the  way,  except  so  far  as  it  may  be  neces- 
sary to  contrive  some  method  to  evade  or  overleap  them. 
All  this  is  required  by  the  official  oath  taken  by  each  of 
them.  By  it  they  create  an  allegiance  to  the  pope  consid- 
ered higher  and  more  binding  than  any  earthly  obligation. 
It  obliges  them  to  be  "  faithful  and  obedient "  to  him ;  to 
"defend  and  keep  the  Roman  papacy  and  the  royalties  of 
St.  Peter ;"  to  do  whatsoever  they  can  to  "  increase "  the 
papal  "  privileges  and  authority,"  and  to  "  persecute  and 
oppose"  all  "heretics,  schismatics,  and  rebels"  who  shall 
stand  in  the  way  of  making  "  the  rules  of  the  holy  fathers, 
the  apostolic  decrees,  ordinances,  or  disposals,  reservations, 
provisions,  and  mandates,"  the  foundation  upon  which  all 
human  institutions  shall  rest.  (2) 

These  American  prelates  took  the  earliest  occasion,  after 
the  appearance  of  the  Syllabus,  to  show,  not  only  that  they 
fully  comprehended  its  meaning,  but  that  the  pope's  reliance 
upon  their  fidelity  to  him  was  not  misplaced.  In  this  extraor- 
dinary document  it  is  asserted,  with  dogmatic  brevity  and 
terseness,  that  it  does  not  appertain  "  to  the  civil  power  to  de- 
fine what  are  the  rights  and  limits  within  which  the  Church 
may  exercise  authority ;"  that  its  authority  must  be  decided 
upon  by  itself,  that  is,  by  the  pope,  and  exercised  "  without 
the  2)ermissio7i  and  assent  of  the  civil  g over 7ime7it  ;^''  and  that, 
*'  in  the  case  of  conflicting  laws  between  the  two  powers," 
the  laws  oithe  Church  must  prevail  over  those  of  the  State.i^) 
Here,  every  thing  is  plain — nothing  equivocal.  The  subor- 
dination of  the  State  to  the  Church,  and  the  substitution  of 
the  papal  hierarchy  for  the  people  in  enacting  and  enforcing 
such  laws  as  the  pope  may  think  necessary  for  the  Church, 
are  distinctly  and  emphatically  asserted.  There  is  no  room 
for  misconstruction  of  the  language.  And  it  must  be  ob- 
served that  the  pope  is  speaking  alone  of  civil  "  rights  and 
limits,"  and  the  authority  which  "  the  Church  may  exercise  " 

O  For  the  "Bishop's  Oath,"  see  Appendix  A. 

C)  "  The  Pope's  Syllabus,"  Articles  19,  20,  and  42.     See  Appendix  D. 


THE  SECOND  NATIONAL  COUNCIL.  43 

in  reference  to  them ;  that  is,  over  that  class  of  temporalities; 
holding  the  Church  to  be,  in  these  respects,  above  the  state, 
and  having  the  right,  as  its  superior,  to  command  and  enforce 
obedience.  It  requires  but  a  moderate  share  of  intelligence 
to  see  that  the  principle  here  asserted  is  in  direct  antagonism 
to  the  theory  of  American  government,  and  that,  if  estab- 
lished, it  would  violate  one  of  the  cherished  provisions  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  of  the  Constitution  of 
every  State  in  the  Union.  The  American  hierarchy  under- 
stand this  perfectly  well.  Whosoever  else  may  shelter  them- 
selves behind  the  plea  of  ignorance,  they  can  not.  And  yet 
this  knowledge  imposed  no  restraint  whatever  upon  them, 
in  the  expression  of  their  submissiveness  and  obedience  to 
the  pope.  They  considered  themselves  as  owing  their  first 
and  highest  allegiance  to  him,  as  the  representative  of  "the 
royalties  of  St.  Peter,"  and  did  not  hesitate  to  avow  it :  of  all 
this,  they  have  themselves  furnished  the  most  satisfactory 
evidence. 

The  second  National  Council  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Hie- 
rarchy of  the  United  States  met  at  Baltimore  in  October, 
1866  —  nearly  two  years  after  the  Encyclical  and  Syllabus 
were  issued.  It  was  composed  of  seven  archbishops  and 
forty  bishops,  besides  a  number  of  the  superiors  of  religious 
orders,  and  was  presided  over  by  Archbishop  Spalding,  of 
Baltimore,  as  "apostolic  delegate"  representing  the  pope, 
and  thus  giving  to  the  assembly  as  much  weight  and  influ- 
ence within  its  jurisdiction  as  if  the  pope  had  been  person- 
ally present.  In  theory  it  represented  the  great  body  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  laity  in  the  United  States ;  practically,  it 
took  no  note  of  them  or  of  their  opinions.  It  was  assembled 
for  a  special  work — to  respond  to  the  Encyclical  and  Sylla- 
bus; and  it  did  it,  to  the  "great  comfort  and  consolation" 
of  the  pope.  It  would  have  been  unnatural  for  him  to  have 
felt  otherwise  at  thus  seeing  the  ranks  of  the  papal  army 
closing  up,  and  at  knowing  how  well  he  had  succeeded  in 
inaugurating  a  conflict  between  the  imperial  dogmas  of  the 
papacy  and  the  fundamental  principles  of  American  govern- 
ment. 

In  the  pastoral  letter  issued  by  this  Council,  the  relation 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  to  the  government  and  laws 


44  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

of  this  country  is  discussed.  There  is  a  tone  of  ecclesias- 
tical authority  and  command  employed  by  its  authors  which 
tends  to  show  an  impression  existing  in  their  minds  that 
they  were  addressing  an  auditory  not  accustomed  to  ques- 
tion their  authority  or  controvert  their  propositions.  Hence, 
they  proceed,  without  indirection,  to  lay  it  down  as  an  ax- 
iom in  the  science  of  all  government,  not  to  be  disputed,  that 
the  civil  power  is  never  absolute  or  independent.  Inasmuch 
as  "  all  power  is  of  God,"  there  must  exist  some  delegated 
authority  upon  earth,  which,  representing  God,  must  consti- 
tute the  tribunal  of  last  resort.  Upon  this  tribunal  alone 
all  absolute  power  is  conferred,  no  matter  what  the  form  of 
government.  If  it  be  a  monarchy,  the  king  must  be  held  in 
subjection  to  it ;  and  if  a  democracy,  the  people  must  be 
taught  that  it  is  above  them.  With  this  as  the  beginning- 
point  of  their  theory,  substantially  expressed,  though  not  in 
these  words,  they  declare  that  obedience  to  the  civil  power 
of  government  "is  not  a  submission  to  force  which  may  not 
be  resisted^  nor  merely  the  compliance  with  a  condition  for 
peace  and  security ;  but  a  religious  duty  founded  on  obedi- 
ence to  God,  by  whose  authority  the  civil  magistrate  exer- 
cises his  power."  This  power  of  the  civil  magistrate,  being 
subordinate  and  delegated  power,  they  insist,  "  must  always 
be  exercised  according  to  God^s  law^  And,  therefore,  "  in 
prescribing  any  thing  contrary  to  that  law,  the  civil  power 
transcends  its  authority^  and  has  no  claim  on  the  obedience 
of  the  citizen^"*  because  it  "  never  can  be  lawful  to  disobey 
God ;"  or,  as  a  necessary  and  logical  result,  those  to  whom, 
as  custodians  of  his  power  on  earth,  he  has  delegated  the 
divine  right  to  govern.  Founding  their  theory  of  govern- 
ment upon  this  idea,  they  proceed  to  show  how  differently 
the  principle  operates  in  "the  Catholic  system"  and  in  the 
Protestant  system.  In  the  latter,  according  to  them,  "  the 
individual  is  the  ultimate  judge  of  what  the  law  of  God 
commands  or  forbids ;"  while  in  the  former,  "  the  Catholic 
has  a  guide  in  the  Church,  as  a  divine  institution,  which  en- 
ables him  to  discriminate  between  what  the  law  of  God  for- 
bids or  allows ;"  so  that  when  the  Church  shall  instruct  him 
that  any  particular  law  of  the  state  is  contrary  to  God's 
law,  he  is  thereby  forbidden  to  pay  obedience  to  it.     Ac- 


CONFLICT  WITH  CIVIL  INSTITUTIONS.  45 

cording  to  the  Protestant  system,  in  their  opinion,  the  state 
is  exposed  to  disorder  and  anarchy,  because  the  authority 
by  which  it  is  governed  has  no  warrant  for  its  character  as 
divine.  The  reverse  they  insist  to  be  the  case  in  the  "  Cath- 
olic system ;"  and,  therefore,  because  it  has  this  divine  au- 
thority in  the  Church  and  not  in  itself,  "  the  state  is  hound  to 
recognize''''  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  as  the  sole  deposi- 
tory of  the  delegated  power  to  decide  what  laws  shall  be 
obeyed  and  what  disobeyed ;  for  the  obvious-  reason  that 
the  world,  in  order  to  obey  God,  must  recognize  that  Church 
— that  is,  the  pope  and  his  hierarchy — "as  supreme  in  its 
sphere  offnorals,  no  less  than  dogmatic  teaching." 

It  requires  no  pause  for  reflection  to  see  how  directly  a 
"  Catholic  system  "  of  government,  thus  constructed,  would 
conflict  with  the  existing  civil  institutions  of  the  United 
States.  Nor  do  we  need  a  prophet  to  tell  us  that  the  estab- 
lishment of  such  a  system  here  would  be  followed  by  their 
immediate  destruction.  To  permit  a  church — a/^y  church — 
to  decide  upon  the  validity  or  invalidity  of  our  laws  after 
their  enactment,  or  to  dictate,  beforehand,  what  laws  should 
or  should  not  be  passed,  would  be  to  deprive  the  people  of 
all  the  authority  they  have  retained  in  their  own  hands,  and 
to  make  such  church  the  governing  power,  instead  of  them. 
Yet,  understanding  this  perfectly  well,  and,  evidently,  con- 
templating the  time  when  they  might  possibly  be  able  to 
bring  about  this  condition  of  affairs,  these  papal  representa- 
tives directly  assail  a  principle  which  has  been  universal  in 
all  our  State  governments,  from  their  foundation ;  that  which 
regulates  by  law  the  holding  of  real  estate  by  churches  and 
other  corporations,  and  requires  them  to  conform,  in  this 
temporal  matter,  to  the  statute-laws  of  the  States.  To  this 
there  could  be  no  reasonable  or  just  objection,  had  they  in- 
voked the  rightful  power  to  change,  alter,  amend,  or  even  to 
abrogate  the  obnoxious  laws,  for  this  would  have  been  only 
the  exercise  of  the  admitted  right  of  free  discussion,  secured 
as  well  to  them  as  others.  But  they,  manifestly,  had  no 
such  idea  in  view,  inasmuch  as,  according  to  them,  that 
method  of  procedure  belongs  to  the  Protestant  and  not  the 
"Catholic  system"  of  government.  To  exclude  the  impres- 
sion that  they  design  to  look  to  any  other  authority  than 


46  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

that  of  the  papacy  for  the  relief  they  seek,  they  take  espe- 
cial pains  to  say  that  they  "  are  not  as  yet  permitted  legally 
to  make  those  arrangements  for  the  security  of  church  prop- 
erty which  are  in  accordance  loith  the  canons  and  discipline 
of  the  Catholic  ChnrchP''  that  is,  that  the  canons  and  disci- 
pline of  their  Church,  issued  from  the  Vatican  at  Rome,  by 
the  pope  and  Roman  curia,  are  not  permitted  to  override 
and  nullify  the  laws  of  the  States  !  The  plain  import  of  this 
is,  that  all  the  laws  of  the  States  concerning  the  rights  of 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  and  regulating  the  manner  in 
which  it  shall  hold  and  enjoy  property,  have  "  no  claim  on 
the  obedience  "  of  the  Roman  Catholic  citizen,  because  they 
are  not  "in  accordance  with  the  canons  and  discipline  of 
the  Catholic  Church  "  and  the  papal  decrees.  Such  a  sys- 
tem of  government,  put  into  practical  operation,  would 
amount  to  this,  that  conformity  to  the  "  canons  and  disci- 
pline "  of  that  Church  would  be  the  test  of  all  laws,  and 
none  would  be  binding  except  those  pronounced  obligatory 
by  the  pope.  The  "  divine  right "  of  the  pope  to  govern  the 
people,  through  his  hierarchy,  would  be  fully  recognized, 
and  the  right  of  self-government  would  be  at  an  end. 

The  right  of  holding  real  estate  and  accumulating  large 
wealth,  after  the  manner  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
and  monastic  orders  of  Europe,  the  American  hierarchy  re- 
gard as  of  so  much  importance  to  the  success  of  their  eccle- 
siastical organization,  that  this  Baltimore  Council  declared 
that  to  withhold  it  is  to  deprive  their  Church  "  of  a  necessa- 
ry meaiis  of  promoting  the  end  for  which  she  has  been  es- 
tablished." They  declare  that  "she  can  not  accept"  the 
principles  upon  which  the  American  laws  are  based  "  with- 
out departing  from  her  practice  from  the  beginning,"  be- 
cause "  they  are  the  expression  of  a  distrust  of  ecclesias- 
tical power  ^  And,  to  leave  no  doubt  whatever  about  their 
meaning,  they  insist  that  the  States  have  no  more  right  to 
impose  on  their  Church  "  a  system  of  holding  her  tempo- 
ralities^ which  is  alie7i  to  her  principles,^''  than  they  have  to 
"  prescribe  to  her  the  doctrines  she  is  to  teach  ;'*  and  they 
solemnly  enter  their  "  formal  protest "  against  all  such  legis- 
lation, notwithstanding  the  laws  they  protest  against  exist 
in  all  the  States,  and  embody  a  principle  deliberately  con- 


PAPAL  AUTHORITY  PREFERRED.         47 

sidered  and  approved  by  the  American  people.  (*)  It  is  in- 
compatible, they  say,  "with  the  full  measure  of  ecclesiastical 
or  religious  liberty^''  to  deprive  them  of  the  right  of  holding 
whatsoever  amount  of  real  or  other  property  they  may  ac- 
quire in  the  United  States,  by  purchase,  devise,  or  gift,  and 
of  governing  it  by  laios  of  the  pope's  or  their  own  enacting^ 
independently  of  the  laws  of  the  States,  to  which  all  Prot- 
estant churches  and  people  pay  cheerful  obedience;  thus 
showing  that  they  would  have  each  archbishop  within  his 
episcopate,  and  each  bishop  within  his  diocese,  and  each 
priest  within  his  parish,  a  temporal  prince^  with  the  scep- 
tre of  royalty  in  his  hands,  although  he  might  not  wear  its 
crown  upon  his  head. 

One  would  expect  to  see,  in  a  document  of  this  kind,  a 
statement  of  some  serious  grievance  against  which  relief 
was  sought,  something  that  would  at  least  excuse,  if  not 
justify,  the  attempt  to  introduce  into  our  government  2u  for- 
eign element  of  authority  above  the  people.  But  the  only 
"  practical  results  "  complained  of  are,  first,  the  taxation  of 
their  church  property;  and,  second,  an  attempt  made  by 
the  State  of  Missouri,  after  the  end  of  the  rebellion,  "  to 
make  the  exercise  of  the  ecclesiastical  ministry  depend  on 
a  condition  laid  down  by  the  civil  power ;"  that  is,  by  re- 
quiring them  to  conform  to  the  laws  of  the  State,  in  furnish- 
ing evidence  of  their  loyalty  to  the  Government.  From  the 
nature  of  these  complaints,  it  would  seem  that  they  were 
only  employed  as  a  pretext,  merely  affording  them  an  op- 
portunity of  making  known  to  the  pope  how  cheerfully  they 
responded  to  the  doctrines  of  his  Encyclical  and  Syllabus, 
and  with  what  confidence  he  might  rely  upon  them  in  doing 
their  share  of  the  work  necessary  to  arrest  the  progress  and 
advancement  upon  which  this  country  had  entered.  (^) 

(*)  Mr.  Jefferson,  in  his  opinion  upon  the  constitutionality  of  the  first 
bank  of  the  United  States,  considered  the  principle  of  the  English  statutes 
of  "mortmain"  as  among  "the  most  ancient  and  fundamental  laws  of  the 
several  States."  But  these  statutes  have  not  been  adopted  generally,  in 
all  their  rigor,  in  this  country.  The  States  are  content  to  limit  ecclesias- 
tical and  other  corporations  in  the  amount  of  their  estates,  and  to  subject 
them,  in  the  ownership  and  enjoyment  of  property,  to  their  general  laws. 

(^)  The  pastoral  letter  of  this  Baltimore  Council  is,  so  far  as  I  have  been 


48  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

The  intentions  of  men  are  frequently  made  known  far 
more  satisfactorily  by  their  surroundings,  the  contempora- 
neous events  with  which  they  are  identified,  the  parties  to 
which  they  are  attached,  and  their  connection  with  other 
individuals,  than  by  the  language  they  use.  By  reference 
to  these  we  are  furnished  with  a  rule  of  interpretation  which 
does  not  often  mislead,  although  it  is  not  altogether  infal- 
lible. Therefore,  when  it  is  considered  that  these  prelates 
who  assembled  at  Baltimore  recognize,  to  the  fullest  possi- 
ble extent,  their  obligation  of  obedience  to  the  pope ;  and 
when  it  is  remembered  that  the  pope  had,  but  a  little  while 
before,  announced  his  views  of  the  relations  which  should 
exist  between  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  and  civil  govern- 
ments, the  conclusion  is  unavoidable  that  they  desire  the 
adoption,  in  this  country,  of  their  theory  of  government, 
based  upon  their  ideas  of  the  "  Catholic  system."  To  assign 
to  them  any  other  motive,  after  the  distinct  and  emphatic 
avowals  they  have  made,  would  be  an  impeachment  of  their 
integrity  and  sincerity;  which  is  not  designed.  It  is  sup- 
posed that  they  occupy  ground  cautiously  and  deliberately 
selected  by  them,  and  are  fully  prepared  to  take  all  the  con- 
sequences which  attach  to  their  position.  There  is,  at  all 
events,  no  misunderstanding  what  they  desire  to  accom- 
plish. Nor  should  there  be  any  misconception  of  the  im- 
mense power  they  wield  over  multitudes  of  men  in  this 
country,  in  moving  them  backward  or  forward,  to  the  right 
or  left,  as  the  pope  shall  direct. 

We  are  not  left  in  any  doubt  about  the  nature  of  the  ter- 
rible struggle  now  going  on  between  the  modern  nations 
and  the  papacy.  These  hierarchs  at  Baltimore  comprehend- 
ed it  fully,  when  they  entered  upon  an  explanation  of  the 
difference  between  the  Protestant  system  of  government, 
with  the  people  as  the  source  of  civil  power,  and  the  "Cath- 
olic system,"  with  the  pope  as  its  only  source.     Having  vol- 

able  to  ascertain,  the  first  document  of  the  kind  ever  issued  in  the  United 
States.  I  have  deemed  it  proper,  therefore,  to  give  the  text  of  it  in  the  Ap- 
pendix, together  with  the  letter  of  the  pope  expressing  his  gratification  at 
the  promise  of  the  council  to  maintain  the  ancient  rights  of  the  papacy,  so 
that  the  reader  can  judge  for  himself  whether  or  not  I  have  misconceived  its 
true  meaning.     See  Appendix  B. 


DOCTRINE  OF  SUBMISSION.  49 

untarily  yielded  to  the  papal  pressure  by  the  frank  avowal 
of  their  preference  for  the  latter ;  and  having  no  excuse,  on 
the  plea  of  ignorance,  for  not  understanding  what  it  has 
hitherto  done  for  the  world,  they  must  be-  considered  as  de- 
siring to  see  the  Christian  nations,  including  the  United 
States,  carried  back  to  the  condition  they  were  in  when  the 
papacy  was  at  the  zenith  of  its  power;  when  kings  were  ig- 
noble enough  to  lay  their  crowns  at  the  feet  of  the  pope ; 
when  popes  disposed  of  kingdoms  at  their  pleasure,  by  im- 
posing or  releasing  the  obligation  of  allegiance,  as  the  re- 
ward of  fidelity  to  themselves,  in  the  one  case,  or  of  dis 
obedience,  in  the  other ;  and  when  ignorant  fanaticism  and 
superstition  were  so  universal  that  the  Christian  world 
dreaded  nothing  so  much  as  the  terrible  thunders  of  ex- 
communication. Why  should  any  body  wonder  that 
Pius  IX.  was  gratified  to  see  things  going  in  that  direction ; 
and,  especially,  to  see  such  flattering  signs  that  the  most 
liberal  and  advanced  nations  might  become  the  first  to  turn 
back,  and  thus  enable  him  to  gain  in  them  what  he  had  lost 
where  the  "Catholic  system"  had  been  on  trial  for  cent- 
uries? He  would  have  possessed  less  sagacity  than  is  as- 
signed to  him,  had  not  the  promise  of  these  faithful  subor- 
dinates to  vindicate  all  his  asserted  prerogatives  excited  in 
his  mind  ardent  hopes  and  flattering  expectations  of  the 
future  of  the  papacy.  He  could  easily  see  that  they  were 
ready  and  willing  to  defend  the  theory  which  he  considers 
the  chiefest  among  all  the  fundamentals  of  government ; 
for  no  matter  what  the  form  of  government,  whether  mo- 
narchical or  republican,  it  makes  him  its  absolute  and  inde- 
pendent ruler  in  all  things  belonging  to  the  domain  of  faith 
and  morals.  The  avowal  is  plainly  made,  in  support  of  this 
theory,  that  submission  to  civil  authority  is  founded  alone 
upon  obedience  to  God,  and  is  not  to  be  obeyed  when  other- 
wise !  Therefore,  it  is  proposed  that  the  Roman  Catholic 
citizen  of  the  United  States  shall  be  carried  along,  step  by 
step,  in  the  following  process  of  training  for  the  duties  of 
citizenship :  he  shall  be  brought  to  recognize  his  Church  as 
the  only  custodian  of  God's  law ;  that  the  pope  is  infalli- 
ble, and  therefore,  as  the  vicegerent  of  God,  has  plenary 
and  sole  power  to  interpret  that  law,  and  can  not  err  in  its 

4 


50  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

interpretation;  that  he  shall  find  his  only  "guide  in  the 
Church"  in  deciding  whether  he  shall  obey  or  disobey  the 
civil  laws  of  the  state ;  that  the  pope  is  the  infallible  repre- 
sentative of  all  truth  in  the  world,  and  infallibly  employs  all 
the  power  and  authority  of  the  Church ;  that,  as  he  can  not 
err  in  any  thing  concerning  faith  and  morals,  he  must,  in 
their  domain,  be  implicitly  obeyed ;  that,  as  the  pope  is  in- 
fallible, as  the  chief  instructor  in  doctrine  and  duty,  his  prel- 
ates are  also  infallible  as  his  subordinate  workers;  that  the 
pope,  as  he  shall  speak  through  the  mouths  of  these  prelates, 
must  be  obeyed  absolutely  and  uninquiringly  —  all  his  ut- 
terances being  taken  as. the  voice  of  God,  coming  directly 
from  his  throne  in  the  heavens ;  and  that  infamy  in  this  life 
and  eternal  damnation  in  that  to  come  will  be  the  inevitable 
doom  of  all  who  shall  impiously  reject  these  teachings.  A 
citizen  thus  trained,  disciplined,  and  humiliated  would  be- 
come, necessarily,  a  mere  machine  in  the  hands  of  superiors, 
who  would  allow  him  to  obey  those  laws  only  which  the 
Church — that  is,  the  pope — should  decide  to  be  consistent 
with  the  commands  of  God ;  and  would  require  him  to  re- 
sist and  oppose  those  which  should  be  decided  to  be  other- 
wise. If  the  laws  requiring  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  to 
hold  property  in  subordination  to  them,  and  in  the  same 
way  that  Protestant  churches  do,  are  forbidden  by  God's 
law,  as  interpreted  by  the  pope  and  placed  in  the'  canons 
and  discipline  of  that  Church — as  the  Baltimore  Council  de- 
clares— they  must  be  swept  out  of  the  way  or  violated  with 
impunity,  so  that  the  Church  itself,  and  all  its  monastic 
orders,  and  all  its  societies,  may  hold  property  to  an  unlim- 
ited amount,  and  make  all  the  laws  which  shall  govern  its 
acquisition  and  enjoyment,  without  any  regard  whatever  to 
the  legislation  of  the  States  or  to  their  rights  and  dignity ! 
With  this  achieved,  the  hierarchy  would  be  far  along  upon 
the  road  that  would  lead  them  to  their  final  triumph — the 
mastery  over  the  people.  The  pope,  as  the  source  of  all 
authority  in  the  Church,  would  put  forth  his  royal  edicts 
and  decrees  in  regard  to  their  church  property  in  this  coun- 
try, prescribing  how  they  should  acquire,  hold,  and  enjoy  it, 
and  these  edicts  and  decrees  would  take  the  place  of  all  our 
State  statutes  upon  that  subject !     This  would  build  up  at 


THE  POPE'S  MEANING.  51 

Rome  an  imperialism  that  would  reach  out  further  over  the 
world  than  did  that  of  the  CsBsars,  and  might  become  far 
greater  and  more  injurious  to  mankind. 

When  the  pope  was  informed  of  the  assembling  of  this 
council,  and  the  obedient  spirit  it  exhibited,  he  caused  his 
cardinal  secretary  to  dispatch  an  answer  expressive  of  his 
apostolic  joy  and  satisfaction.  He  directed  the  facts  to  be 
published  in  the  official  journal  of  his  court,  "  for  the  edifica- 
tion of  his  Roman  people  and  the  faithful  at  large;"  so  that 
they,  who  had  been  striving  after  a  government  founded 
upon  their  own  consent,  could  realize  how  ready  the  people 
of  the  United  States  were  to  give  up  such  a  government,  in 
exchange  for  one  constructed  upon  the  paternal  plan  which 
prevailed  at  Rome,  under  his  pontifical  auspices.  And, 
seemingly  aroused  to  the  highest  point  of  rejoicing  at  the 
work  the  Encyclical  and  Syllabus  had  thus  far  accomplished, 
he  declared  that  his  mind  was  excited  by  the  hope  that,  by 
means  and  through  the  influence  of  what  the  council  at  Bal- 
timore had  done, "  a  new  impulse  and  continued  increase  to 
religion  in  the  United  States  will  result." (")  What  the  pope 
meant  by  this  may  be  derived  from  the  fact  that  the  cable 
dispatch  sent  to  him  by  the  archbishops  and  bishops  who 
composed  the  council,  expressed  only  their  wishes  for  his 
"  long  life,  with  the  preservation  of  all  the  ancient  and  sacred 
rights  of  the  Holy  See.^\^)  There  was  no  reference  to  any  of 
the  ordinary  dogmas  of  religious  faith,  as  there  could  be  no 
doubt  about  their  fidelity  to  them.  There  was  no  agitation 
in  the  Church  rendering  such  reference  necessary.  The  issue 
made  by  the  Encyclical  and  Syllabus  between  the  papacy 
and  the  progressive  modern  nations  was  the  only  one  which 
immediately  concerned  the  pope  and  the  Church.  This  in- 
volved the  existence  of  his  temporal  power,  which  the 
Italian  people  were  only  then  prevented  by  the  presence  of 
French  troops  from  taking  away  from  him.  Consequently, 
when  they  declared  their  desire  to  see  "all  the  ancient  and 
sacred  rights  of  the  Holy  See"  preserved,  the  pope  was  at 
no  loss  to  know  what  they  meant.     He  understood  them  as 

(*")  See  the  pope's  dispatch,  Appendix  B. 

C)  Appletons'  "Annual  Cyclopaedia,"  1866,  p.  678.     See  Appendix  B. 


52  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

indorsing  all  the  claims  he  had  set  up  in  the  Encyclical  and 
Syllabus,  including  that  of  temporal  and  ecclesiastical  sov- 
ereignty, and  his  right  to  require  that  the  civil  governments 
of  the  world  should  conform  to  "  the  canon  laws  and  disci- 
pline "  of  the  Church.  Therefore,  the  idea  he  intended  to  con- 
vey was  this:  that  the  religion  which  had  received  a  "new 
impulse "  in  the  United  States  was  that  which  taught  the 
subordination  of  all  civil  governments  to  the  Church  and  the 
papacy  !  It  was  not  the  true  religion  which  was  exempli- 
fied in  the  life  and  example  of  Christ,  and  which  has  its 
foundation  in  universal  charity  and  love ;  but  that  which 
places  the  pope  above  all  kingdoms  and  peoples,  and  re- 
quires every  human  being  to  pay  him  homage  and  fidelity. 
The  facts  before  him  tended  naturally  to  draw  from  him  the 
rapturous  expression  of  his  hope.  To  see  his  followers  in 
the  United  States  stepping  so  hastily  into  the  front  rank  of 
those  who  were  ready  to  battle  for  the  "a^^c^en^"  rights  of 
the  Holy  See — when  kings,  under  the  idea  of  "  divine  right," 
received  their  crowns  from  the  popes — must  have  excited  in 
his  mind  the  most  profound  gratification.  One  can  readily 
suppose  that,  in  his  pontifical  enthusiasm,  he  looked  forward, 
exultingly,  to  the  time  when  governments  and  constitu- 
tions and  laws  would  be  reconstructed  so  as  to  conform  to 
the  papal  model,  and  when  there  would  be  snatched  from 
the  hands  of  the  people^  wherever  they  possess  it,  the  power 
to  make  their  own  laws,  or  to  enforce  any  which  he  or  his 
successors  shall  declare  to  be  contrary  to  faith  and  good 
morals.  To  an  old  man  of  kind  heart  and  generous  sympa- 
thies, it  must  be  terribly  crushing  to  see  such  bright  hopes 
and  flattering  anticipations  suddenly  dashed  to  the  ground, 
as  were  those  of  Pius  IX.  after  they  had  been  thus  excited, 
when  Rome,  by  the  act  of  the  Italian  people,  became  their 
capital.  Shall  the  tide  of  retrogression,  thus  arrested  in  It- 
aly, by  a  Roman  Catholic  population,  be  permitted  to  set  in 
again  in  the  very  heart  of  the  Protestant  nations? 

The  reason  assigned  for  the  preference  of  the  "  Catholic 
system  "  over  the  Protestant  is  the  incapacity  of  the  people 
to  govern  themselves,  and  to  take  care  of  their  own  civil  af- 
fairs—an argument  as  old  as  tyranny.  The  Baltimore  Coun- 
cil tell  us  that  by  recognizing,  a8  we  do  in  this  country,  "an 


ANTAGONISM  OF  THE  TWO  SYSTEMS.  53 

authority  "  to  govern,  "  which  has  no  warrant  for  its  charac- 
ter as  divine,  and  no  limits  in  its  application,"  the  nation  is 
exposed  to  "  disorder  and  anarchy ;"  and  the  concession  to 
the  Roman  Catholic  hierarchy  of  the  right  to  separate  their 
property  from  the  mass  of  that  belonging  to  other  churches 
and  people,  and  to  govern  it  by  their  own  laws,  or  by  the 
canon  laws  of  Rome,  is  demanded  upon  that  express  ground. 
With  these  prelates,  Protestantism  thus  tends  to  the  dis- 
ruption of  the  whole  social  fabric,  because  it  confers  upon 
each  individual  the  right  to  decide  what  shall  be  the  form  of 
his  religious  belief,  or  whether  he  shall  have  any ;  and  con- 
ducts all  civil  aflairs  without  referring  it  to  the  pope,  or  his 
ecclesiastics,  or  to  any  church  authorities  whatever,  to  de- 
cide what  laws  shall  be  obeyed  and  what  resisted.  The  is- 
sue is  a  plain  one— easily  perceptible  to  the  most  ordinary 
comprehension.  The  two  systems  stand  in  direct  antago- 
nism with  each  other.  The  Protestant  has  separated  the 
State  from  the  Church;  the  papal  proposes  to  unite  them 
again.  The  Protestant  has  founded  its  civil  institutions 
upon  the  will  of  the  people;  the  papal  proposes  to  recon- 
struct and  found  them  upon  the  icill  of  the  pope.  The  Prot- 
estant secures  religious  freedom;  the  papal  requires  that 
every  man  shall  give  up  his  conscience  to  the  keeping  of 
ecclesiastical  superiors.  The  Protestant  develops  the  facul- 
ties, of  the  mind  by  inciting  the  spirit  of  personal  independ- 
ence and  manhood ;  the  papal  crushes  out  all  this  spirit  by 
its  debasing  doctrine  of  passive  obedience  and  submission. 
The  Protestant  has  put  the  world  upon  a  career  of  progress 
and  prosperity ;  the  papal  desires  to  arrest  this  career,  and 
turn  it  back  into  those  old  grooves  which  have  led  so  many 
nations  to  wreck  and  desolation.  The  issue  is  made  between 
these  systems  in  so  bold  and  manly  a  manner,  that  its  au- 
thors are  entitled  to  that  consideration  which  the  possession 
of  high  moral  courage  always  excites  in  generous  minds. 
They  can,  therefore,  have  no  just  cause  to  complain  of  either 
intolerance  or  persecution,  if,  finding  ourselves  in  the  posses- 
sion of  free  and  popular  institutions,  which  we  have  solemn- 
ly declared  to  be  inalienable,  we  shall  employ  like  courage 
in  their  defense;  or  even  if,  in  maintaining- their  integrity, 
it  shall  become  necessary  to  point  out  the  contrast  between 


54  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

these  opposing  systems  to  the  extent  of  showing  that  the 
Protestant  and  popular  system  was  necessary  to  lift  the 
world  out  of  the  corruption  and  degradation  into  which  the 
papacy  had  plunged  it.  If  it  is  a  species  of  hallucination  to 
suppose  that  such  institutions  as  we  possess  are  better  suit- 
ed to  our  condition  than  any  that  the  pope,  as  "  King  of 
Rome,"  or  any  of  his  ecclesiastical  subordinates,  or  any  ec- 
clesiastical tribunal  whatever,  would  be  likely  to  substitute 
for  them,  we  are  not  yet  quite  prepared  to  see  it  dispelled. 
If  we  abhor  kingly  or  papal  imperialism,  or  imperialism  in 
any  of  its  variety  of  forms,  and  cling  to  institutions  estab- 
lished in  the  face,  and  in  defiance  of  it,  we  should  be  unfaith- 
ful to  our  convictions,  and  unworthy  our  position  among  the 
nations,  if  we  did  not  rebuke,  in  fit  and  indignant  terms,  any 
attempt,  by  whomsoever  made,  to  fetter  us  with  its  chains, 
or  to  plant  its  iron  heel  upon  our  necks. 

He  must  be  stone-blind  who  does  not  see,  in  the  light  of 
these  and  other  facts  occurring  almost  daily,  that  Protest- 
antism has  been  formally  arraigned  by  its  vindictive  and 
unrelenting  enemy ;  that  it  has  been  put  upon  its  trial  be- 
fore the  civilized  world;  that  judgment  of  condemnation 
has  already  been  pronounced  against  it;  and  that  the  arm 
of  the  executioner  is  only  stayed  until  the  limbs  of  the  vic- 
tim can  be  so  tightly  bound  as  to  make  its  resistance  una- 
vailing. Its  open  adversary  and  accuser  is  the  papacy, 
which,  unwilling  to  submit  to  the  necessity  that  has  wrought 
out  its  own  defeat  among  those  who  are  most  familiar  with 
its  enormities  and  oppressions,  now  assails  it  courageously, 
but  impudently,  in  the  citadel  of  its  greatest  strength.  The 
loss  of  his  imperial  crown  in  Rome  has  dispelled  the  joy  of 
Pius  IX.,  and  driven  him  into  a  frenzy  of  excitement  and 
passion;  and,  availing  himself  of  the  license  afforded  by  the 
tolerant  spirit  of  American  laws  and  institutions,  he  is  rap- 
idly transferring  his  best  drilled  and  disciplined  militia^)  to 
the  United  States;  and,  claiming  to  be  clothed  in  the  robes 
and  with  the  authority  of  divinity,  he  demands,  in  the  name 
of  Deity,  that  we  shall  bow  down  before  him  in  passive  sub- 

(")  When  Pope  Pius  VII.  re-established  the  Jesuits,  after  their  suppression 
by  Clement  XIV.,  he  called  them  the  "  Sacred  Militia  "  of  the  Church. 


VIGILANCE  NEEDFUL.  55 

mission,  and  accept  his  commands  as  if  uttered  by  a  voice 
from  heaven.  We,  who  believe  that  Protestantism  is  shel- 
tered by  Divine  care,  must  not  remain  unresisting  under  an 
attack  so  immediate  and  formidable,  nor  sit  still  while  a 
judgment  may  be  taken,  by  default,  against  us.  A  com- 
manding sense  of  duty  requires  that  we  should  look  this 
haughty  and  imperious  adversary  full  in  the  face,  under- 
stand his  machinations,  strip  him  of  his  disguises,  unravel 
his  plots,  and  meet  him  at  every  point  of  attack.  If  we 
shall  remain  insensible  to  any  of  the  obligations  of  this  duty, 
now  that  the  battle-cry  is  sounding  in  our  ears,  it  may  be 
too  late  after  the  storming-party  has  mounted  the  walls  of 
our  fortress,  pulled  liown  our  flag,  and  planted  that  of  papal 
and  ecclesiastical  absolutism  upon  the  grave  of  popular  in- 
stitutions. 

What  does  Protestantism  mean  ?  What  necessity  gave  it 
birth  ?  What  has  it  done  for  mankind  ?  What  would  be 
the  condition  of  the  world  if  it  were  destroyed  ?  These  are 
questions  we  should  not  fear  to  discuss,  and  which  we  are 
bound  to  discuss,  now  that  it  is  denounced,  in  our  very  faces, 
as  heresy  and  infidelity^  and  we  are  insolently  told  that  duty 
to  both  God  and  man  requires  its  total  extermination,  and 
the  erection  of  a  "  Holy  Empire  "  wheresoever  its  principles 
prevail  and  its  institutions  exist.  We  must  not  sink  into 
indifference,  nor  permit  the  fear  of  consequences  to  slacken 
our  exertions  in  a  cause  of  such  transcendent  importance  to 
ourselves  and  our  children.  If  our  fathers  had  been  easily 
intimidated,  we  should  have  had  no  such  government  as  we 
now  possess.  If  we  shall  prove  less  courageous  than  they, 
the  heritage  they  have  left  us  may  not  pass  to  many  gen- 
erations of  our  descendants.  Some  of  the  proudest  govern- 
ments of  the  earth  have  already  fallen ;  there  are  none  that 
may  not  fall. 

This  is  not  called  a  Protestant  country  because  religion,  in 
the  Protestant  sense,  is  established  by  law,  or  has  any  pro- 
tection given  to  it  which  is  not  equally  extended  to  all  other 
forms  of  religion — Roman  Catholic,  Jewish,  Mohammedan, 
Brahminical,  Greek,  or  Chinese.  No  such  preference  could 
be  conferred  by  law  under  our  system  of  government ;  for 
it  would  so  essentially  and  flagrantly  violate  its  fundamental 


56  THE  PAFACr  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

principles  that  it  would  be  instantaneously  destroyed.  By 
these  principles,  upon  which  the  whole  superstructure  has 
been  reared,  every  citizen — no  matter  whether  native-born 
or  naturalized — is  fully  and  equally  protected  in  the  per- 
sonal and  individual  right  to  maintain,  in  private  or  public, 
whatsoever  religious  faith,  and  to  practice  whatsoever  form 
of  religious  worship,  his  own  conscience  shall  approve,  no 
matter  what  degree  of  absurdity  it  may  involve.  No  rea- 
sonable man  should  desire  a  higher  degree  of  religious  lib- 
erty than  this.  It  gives  to  our  form  of  government  a  dis- 
tinguishing characteristic,  found  nowhere  else  in  so  eminent 
a  degree,  until  the  people  of  the  United  States  entered  upon 
the  experiment  of  self-government.  It  stamps  our  institu- 
tions with  their  Protestant  character,  and  distins^uishes  them, 
in  a  conspicuous  degree,  from  such  as  have  existed  in  those 
countries  known  as  Roman  Catholic,  where  no  such  tolera- 
tion and  liberality  have  ever  existed,  and  no  such  experi- 
ment has  been  tried. 

No  intellicjent  reader  needs  to  be  told  that  the  relisrious 
controversies  of  Europe  gave  rise  to  the  term  "  Protestant." 
In  its  original  application  to  those  controversies  it  had  a 
distinct  religious  meaning — as  at  the  Diet  of  Spires,  in  1529. 
But  as  they  were  of  long  continuance — through  and  subse- 
quent to  the  great  Reformation  of  the  sixteenth  century — 
and  Protestants  were  compelled  to  concert  some  measures 
of  escape  from  the  oppression  and  persecutions  which  arose 
out  of  the  union  of  Church  and  State,  and  the  consequent 
claim  of  the  "divine  right"  of  kings  to  govern  the  world,  it 
acquired,  in  the  course  of  time,  a  different  and  more  compre- 
hensive signification.  Protestant  Christianity  was  under- 
stood to  involve  the  right  to  protest  against  the  corruptions 
and  exactions  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  to  withdraw 
from  communion  with  it,  and  to  worship  God  in  other  forms 
than  those  prescribed  by  its  discipline.  It  encountered, 
therefore,  from  that  Church  and  its  ecclesiastical  authorities 
— then  almost  supreme  over  the  Christian  world — such  op- 
position as  it  found  itself  without  power  to  resist,  unless  it 
could  find  shelter,  somewhere,  under  the  protection  of  law. 
This  was  obtained,  to  some  extent,  after  severe  and  protract- 
ed struggles,  under  the  laws  of  Great  Britain,  Germany,  and 


OUR  INSTITUTIONS  PROTESTANT  IN  FORM.  57 

Holland ;  and  yet,  even  in  those  comparatively  free  coun- 
tries, thought  had  many  difficulties  and  impediments  to 
overcome  before  it  could  acquire  perfect  freedom.  Its  only 
formidable  adversary,  during  all  its  struggles,  was  the  pa- 
pacy, which  was  ever  ready  to  plunge  the  pontifical  sword 
to  the  heart  of  its  victims. 

The  original  emigrants  to  the  United  States  brought  with 
them  from  Europe  the  principles  of  Protestantism,  mingled 
somewhat  with  the  less  liberalizing  principles  of  Romanism  ; 
and,  although  for  a  while  the  eflTects  of  the  habits  of  thought 
they  had  thus  acquired  were  exhibited  in  the  practice  of  re- 
ligious intolerance,  they  united,  in  the  end,  in  the  creation 
of  a  government  entirely  freed  from  this  taint.  They  gave 
up  their  intolerance  in  order  to  secure  the  perfect  triumph 
of  Protestantism,  in  its  most  comprehensive  sense  ;  and  when 
our  National  and  State  governments  were  organized  with 
the  principle  of  toleration  at  their  foundation,  our  civil  in- 
stitutions, became  also,  necessarily,  Protestant  in  form ;  be- 
cause they  contain  the  amplest  guarantees  for  both  religious 
and  civil  freedom. 

The  idea  conveyed  by  the  common  expression  "  the  Prot- 
estant religion  "  is  generally  misunderstood.  Religion  signi- 
fies a  "  system  of  faith  and  worship ;"  true  or  false  according 
to  the  stand-point  from  which  it  is  considered.  To  us  the 
Christian  religion  is  true,  while  those  of  the  Hindoos,  Chinese, 
and  Turks  are  false.  Nevertheless,  the  systems  of  faith  and 
worship  which  prevail  among  the  Hindoos,  Chinese,  and 
Turks  are  only  so  many  forms  of  religion.  Protestantism 
is  not  a  religion  in  this  sense,  for  it  recognizes  no  system  of 
faith  and  worship  to  the  exclusion  of  others.  It  is  only  an- 
other form  of  Christianity,  distinct  from  those  which  existed 
in  the  world  before  its  origin.  It  is  altogether  proper,  when 
speaking  of  the  Church  of  England,  to  say  the  "  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church,"  because,  at  its  organization,  after  the  Ref- 
ormation, it  assumed  an  attitude  of  open  antagonism  to  the 
Church  of  Rome  by  protesting  against  its  errors.  But  nei- 
ther that  nor  any  of  the  other  churches  which  have  origi- 
nated since  the  Reformation  can  justly  demand  to  be  known 
Si's, '•'•  the  Protestant  Church,'^''  There  are  a  number  of  Prot- 
estant churches,  each  representing  its  own  form  of  Protest- 


58  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

antism.  Taken  as  a  whole,  tliey  "  may  be  regarded  as  d liferent 
developments  of  one  and  the  same  Protestant  principle."(') 
Therefore  Protestantism,  in  so  far  as  it  has  a  religious  aspect, 
represents  all  these  churches ;  that  is,  Protestant  Christian- 
ity is  liberal  and  comprehensive  enough  to  embrace  them  all. 
It  goes  even  further  than  this,  and  recognizes  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  as  a  Christian  Church,  and  its  religion  as 
only  a  different  form  of  Christianity  from  itself. 

But  Protestantism  does  not  alone  include  Christianity  and 
religion  in  these  senses ;  it  has  other  aspects.  In  its  proper 
signification  it  embraces  ''''the  whole  offspring  of  the  Refor- 
mationf^i^°)  that  is,  all  the  principles,  civil  as  well  as  relig- 
ious, to  which  the  Reformation  gave  birth.  These  principles 
have  been  at  work,  upon  both  individuals  and  governments, 
ever  since  the  Reformation,  and  such  has  been  their  influence, 
that  "  the  countries  of  the  Reformation  are  the  theatre  of  the 
greatest  work  of  God  which  has  taken  place  since  the  days 
of  the  apostles." (^^)  The  leading  cause  of  the  Reformation 
was  "a  sudden  effort  made  by  the  human  mind  to  achieve 
its  liberty,  a  great  insurrection  of  human  intelligence."(^'') 
It  had  to  contend,  therefore,  against  every  thing  which  put 
restraint  upon  liberty,  whether  found  in  Church  or  State; 
so  that  Protestantism,  in  taking  its  distinctive  form,  became 
the  principle  out  of  which  all  the  existing  guarantees  of  re- 
ligious and  civil  freedom  sprung.  It  saved  religion  by  sepa- 
rating it  from  the  corruptions  of  the  papacy,  and  thus  pro- 
viding for  the  world  a  purer  and  better  form  of  Christianity ; 
it  saved  society  by  breaking  the  sceptres  of  kings  and  popes, 
and  elevating  the  people  to  the  point  of  asserting  and  main- 
taining their  natural  right  to  liberty.  Consequently,  Prot- 
estantism, by  diffusing  new  thoughts,  ideas,  and  principles, 
has  so  influenced  individuals,  societies,  and  governments, 
that  now,  in  the  nineteenth  century,  its  results  are  seen  in 
all  the  civil  and  religious  institutions  existing  among  Chris- 
tian peoples.  Wherever  there  are  freedom  of  thought,  free- 
dom of  speech,  and  freedom  of  the  press,  they  are  exclusively 


(")  Dr.  Dorner,  "History  of  Protestant  Theology,"  Introduction,  p.  11. 
C)  Ibid,,  p.  2.  (")76tU,p.  5. 

(")  Guizot,  "History  of  Civilization,"  vol.  i.,  p.  257. 


FKEEDOM  THE  OUTGROWTH  OF  PROTESTANTISM.   59 

of  Protestant  origin  and  growth.  These  involve  no  religious 
sentiments,  but  are  mere  civil  rights.  Yet  they  are  rights 
which  are  included  in  Protestantism ;  because  if  it  were  de- 
stroyed, they  would  be  also.  And  thus  the  term  "  Protest- 
antism" has  a  twofold  signification,  embracing  whatsoever 
has  grown  out  of  the  Reformation,  in  both  Church  and  State. 
So  it  is  regarded  by  the  most  distinguished  authors  who 
have  endeavored  to  point  out  the  philosophy  of  the  Refor- 
mation. Even  the  Roman  Catholic  Archbishop  Spalding, 
who  presided  over  the  Baltimore  Council,  has  entitled  his 
greatest  work  "The  History  of  the  Protestant  Reformation," 
and  has  devoted  it  to  the  discussion  of  the  influence  of  Prot- 
estantism on  society,  on  civil  liberty,  on  literature,  and  on 
civilization,  as  well  as  on  doctrinal  belief,  morals,  and  relig- 
ious worship.  He  who  does  not  comprehend  Protestantism 
in  all  these  aspects  fails  to  comprehend  its  real  meaning, 
and  will  have  poor  conceptions  of  the  diflferences  between  it 
and  Romanism.  If  there  were  but  a  single  difference — con- 
sisting merely  in  matters  of  religious  faith — the  field  of  con- 
troversy between  them  would  be  greatly  narrowed,  and 
would  be  occupied  alone  by  the  theologians.  But  they  are, 
in  fact,  two  opposing  systems,  as  stated  by  the  Baltimore 
Council ;  and  this  opposition  is  no  less  in  government  than 
religion. 

In  the  formation  of  their  National  and  State  constitutions 
the  American  people  designed  to  embody  the  means  of  pre- 
serving to  themselves  and  their  posterity  all  those  fruits 
of  the  Reformation  which  are  represented  by  Protestantism. 
They  intended  to  give  fuller  development  to  its  principles, 
and  surer  guarantees  for  their  preservation,  than  they  had 
before  received.  Hence,  when  we  speak  of  this  as  a  Prot- 
estant country,  of  our  institutions  as  Protestant,  and  of  our- 
selves as  a  Protestant  people,  we  should  be  understood  as 
conveying  the  idea  that,  in  the  affairs  of  both  Church  and 
State,  we  have  chosen  to  abandon  the  old  papal  system,  and 
to  establish  one  more  in  harmony  with  the  genius  of  our 
people,  because  it  gives  the  best  guarantee  ever  yet  afforded 
to  the  world  for  perpetuating  those  great  principles  of  the 
Reformation,  by  means  of  which  the  minds  of  men  became 
free,  and  the  shackles  of  civil  tyranny  were  stricken  from 


60  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

their  limbs.  Whether  mankind  have  lost  or  gained,  or 
whether  the  world  has  moved  backward  or  forward,  under 
the  influence  of  the  institutions  we  have  thus  formed,  are 
questions  which,  with  us,  need  no  discussion.  We,  at  all 
events,  cherish  the  belief,  and  teach  it  to  our  children,  that 
under  no  other  form  of  civil  institutions  found  in  the  world 
are  mankind  so  well  protected  in  every  just  and  proper 
right,  or  made  so  capable  of  advancing  their  own  happiness 
and  prosperity,  as  they  are  under  ours.  We  confidently, 
and  somewhat  proudly,  assert  for  our  Protestant  principles 
of  government  a  superiority  over  those  of  the  monarchical 
form  ;  and  congratulate  ourselves  that  mankind  are  gradual- 
ly coming  to  the  realization  of  the  idea  that  only  by  means 
of  them  can  civil  and  religious  liberty  be  fully  secured  and 
preserved. 

Are  we  right  or  wrong  in  cherishing  these  opinions  ?  in 
supposing  that  freedom  is  preferable  to  bondage?  in  main- 
taining that  a  government  oi  the  people  is  better  than -that 
of  an  emperor,  or  a  king,  or  a  pope,  or  an  ecclesiastical  hie- 
rarchy? and  that  no  privileged  classes  are  born  into  the 
world  ready  "booted  and  spurred"  to  govern  and  debase 
mankind  by  ''^divine  right f"* 

Other  governments,  besides  ours,  have  been  founded  on 
the  popular  will — on  the  right  of  the  people,  as  the  source 
of  civil  power,  to  prescribe  their  own  form  of  institutions. 
Before  the  Christian  era,  the  Romans  and  the  Spartans  rec- 
ognized the  efficacy  of  the  doctrine  that  "  the  safety  of  the 
people  is  the  supreme  law ;"  but  they  were  unable  to  secure 
its  establishment,  as  a  distinctive  and  permanent  feature 
of  their  governments,  because  they  failed  to  cultivate  that 
sense  of  personality  out  of  which  grow  the  virtue  and  in- 
telligence necessary  for  the  support  of  popular  institutions. 
Unfortunate,  however,  as  their  failure  was  for  the  world, 
the  avowal  of  the  principle  gave  rise  to  influences  which 
were  never  entirely  destroyed.  The  idea  of  government 
upon  which  they  unsuccessfully  experimented  struggled 
along  through  succeeding  centuries — even  through  the  Mid- 
dle Ages — awaiting  a  favorable  opportunity  for  ultimate 
and  complete  development.  It  has  always  had  many  able 
and  zealous  defenders  in  the  countries  considered  the  most 


PIONEERS  OF  LIBERTY.       .        '  61 

enlightened;  but  they  have  been  kept  down  by  the  govern- 
ing classes,  who  employed  the  combined  authority  of  State 
and  Church  to  intimidate  and  subdue  them.  This  com- 
bined influence  was,  for  a  long  time,  sufiicient  to  hush  al- 
most every  murmur  of  complaint  against  misgovernment, 
except  among  the  few  who  dared  to  defy  it,  at  the  hazard 
of  their  lives.  Now  and  then  one  of  these  intrepid  spirits 
appeared,  and  flung  his  censures  into  the  very  teeth  of  roy- 
alty; and  if  he  paid  for  his  boldness  by  the  forfeit  of  his 
life,  others  of  like  courage  arose  to  take  his  place ;  and  thus 
the  line  of  patriotic  succession  was  kept  unbroken.  They 
were  few  in  number,  but  enough  of  them  to  keep  the  flres 
of  liberty  aflame,  so  that  they  might  flash  in  the  eyes  of 
royalty.  The  world  would,  centuries  ago,  have  been  turned 
over  entirely  to  cruel  and  exacting  task-masters,  and  sunk 
into  utter  political  darkness,  but  for  the  bravery  of  these 
defenders  of  popular  freedom.  Comprehending  the  true 
philosophy  of  government,  they  maintained  that  every  man 
in  a  free  state  ought  to  be  concerned  in  his  own  govern- 
ment, and  that  the  legislative  power  should  reside  in  the 
whole  body  of  the  people,(^^)  to  be  exercised  by  representa- 
tives responsible  to  them ;  and  that,  in  order  to  support  and 
preserve  this  theory  of  government,  each  individual  should 
be  allowed  to  speak  his  own  thoughts,  employ  his  own  rea- 
son, and  consult  his  own  conscience  in  reference  to  all  mat- 
ters concerning  his  duty  to  God.  The  great  difliculty  which 
so  long  lay  in  the  way  of  impressing  these  sentiments  and 
principles  upon  the  governments  of  Europe,  grew  out  of  the 
compact  and  unbroken  union  of  State  and  Church — a  union 
which  found  its  only  means  of  preservation  in  the  denial 
and  in  the  violent  and  forcible  suppression  of  every  kind  of 
popular  and  political  freedom.  The  antagonism  between 
these  opposing  principles  was  too  irreconcilable  for  compro- 
mise, and  the  stronger  party  prevailed  over  the  weaker,  the 
kings  and  popes  over  the  people.  But  the  framers  of  our 
institutions  escaped  this  antagonism  only  by  the  occupancy 
of  a  new  and  remote  continent,  and,  therefore,  were  per- 
fectly free,  without  any  immediate  fear  of  it,  to  make  the 

(")  Montesquieu's  "Spirit  of  Laws,"  vol.  i.,  p,  154. 


62  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

principle  so  happily  expressed  by  Montesquieu  the  basis  of 
their  political  action  and  organization.  In  the  Declaration 
of  Independence  they  asserted  it,  by  declaring  that,  in  order 
to  secure  "  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness,"  it  was 
necessary  that  governments  should  derive  "their  just  pow- 
ers from  the  conserit  of  the  governed j'  that  whenever  any 
form  of  government  becomes  destructive  of  these  ends,  it  is 
the  right  of  the  people  to  alter  or  to  abolish  it,  and  to  insti- 
tute a  new  government,  laying  its  foundation  on  such  princi- 
ples, and  organizing  its  powers  in  such  form,  as  to  them  shall 
seem  most  likely  to  effect  their  safety  and  happiness." 

This  act  of  independence  is  esteemed  to  be  one  of  the 
great  events  in  history,  and  has  commanded  the  admiration 
of  a  very  large  portion  of  the  civilized  world.  It  did  not 
create  a  government,  but  asserted  the  right  oi  the  people^  as 
distinct  from  that  of  kings  and  princes  —  wliether  of  State 
or  Church,  or  of  high  or  low  degree — to  establish  and  main- 
tain one  of  such  form  and  structure  as,  in  their  opinion,  was 
most  conducive  to  their  own  "  safety  and  happiness."  Those 
who  assail  this  great  principle — whether  they  be  native- 
born  or  adopted  citizens  —  deny  the  wisdom  and  impeach 
the  integrity  of  the  founders  of  the  Republic.  They  aim 
their  blows  at  the  central  column  upon  which  our  national 
edifice  has  rested  for  nearly  a  century,  in  the  face  of  opposi- 
tion from  all  the  allies  of  monarchy.  Has  the  time  come 
when  this  edifice  shall  be  permitted  to  fall,  or  these  blows 
be  continued  with  impunity?  They  know  but  little  of  the 
temper  of  our  people  who  suppose  that  they  may  not  be 
pressed  too  far  upon  a  question  of  such  vital  importance. 
Within  its  proper  sphere  they  have  assigned  to  each  depart- 
ment of  their  government  its  own  appropriate  functions  in 
making,  interpreting,  and  executing  the  laws.  Above  and 
beyond,  and  higher  than  all  these,  they  have  retained  the 
sovereign  power  in  their  own  hands.  They  will  allow  their 
reason  to  be  appealed  to  in  favor  of  new  laws,  and  the 
change  or  abrogation  of  old  ones,  without  any  exhibition  of 
intolerance  on  account  of  differences  of  opinion.  They  live, 
and  their  intelligence  and  patriotism  are  increased,  in  the 
atmosphere  of  free  discussion.  But  when  the  effort  is  seri- 
ously made  to  snatch  this  sovereign  power  from  them;  to 


SUPERIORITY  OF  REPUBLICAN  INSTITUTIONS.  63 

dwarf  them  into  inferiority  before  a  foreign  potentate ;  to 
exact  from  them  obedience  to  laws  enacted  without  their 
consent ;  to  erect  an  ecclesiastical  tribunal  in  the  midst  of 
them,  answerable  only  to  laws  of  the  Roman  curia ;  and  to 
surrender  up  the  inestimable  privilege  of  self-government ; 
then  toleration  ceases  to  be  a  virtue  and  becomes  a  crime. 
If  the  people  of  the  United  States,  in  the  progress  of  their 
history,  have  demonstrated  any  thing,  it  is  that  such  insti- 
tutions as  require  the  least  degree  of  force  and  coercion  are 
best  adapted  to  improve  and  elevate  mankind.  And  they 
who  pretend  that  the  proper  supremacy  of  law  is  inconsist- 
ent with  such  institutions  are  either  ignorant  or  insincere, 
and  unworthy,  in  either  case,  of  being  intrusted  with  their 
management.  No  political  institutions  can  be  safely  given 
over  to  the  care  of  those  whose  principles  and  sentiments 
are  in  antasfonism  to  them.  Monarchism  can  not  minsrle 
with  the  principles  of  a  free  republic.  Liberty  and  slavery 
can  not  exist  together.  The  people  can  not  govern  in  their 
own  right,  where  ecclesiasticism  governs  in  the  name  of 
"divine  right." 

The  science  of  government  involves,  necessarily,  the  prop- 
er administration  of  law,  as  well  as  the  making  of  law  ;  for 
so  long  as  mankind  remain  under  the  dominion  of  selfishness 
and  egotism,  law,  in  some  form  of  restraint,  must  continue 
to  exist.  Christianity  and  civilization,  with  all  they  have 
done  for  the  world,  and  all  their  discoveries,  improvements, 
and  elevating  influences,  have  not  yet  raised  man  so  high, 
or  made  him  so  near  the  angels,  that  he  can  be  safely  left 
to  the  full  dominion  of  his  passions.  Consequently,  govern- 
ments have  no  more  important  problem  to  solve  than  that 
involved  in  deciding  how  far  to  apply  the  restraints  of  law, 
and  in  what  manner  to  apply  them,  consistently  with  a 
proper  degree  of  individual  and  political  liberty.  The  sup- 
porters of  those  governments  where  the  sovereignty  of  the 
people  is  denied,  and  where  nothing  but  force  is  relied  on  to 
secure  the  administration  of  law,  make  a  great  and  radical 
mistake.  They  seem  incapable  of  realizing  the  fact  that 
law  can  only  constitute  a  just  and  proper  rule  of  action 
when  it  is  made  responsive  to  a  pre-existing  public  senti- 
ment; in  other  words,  when  it  is  adapted  to  the  condition 


64  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

of  the  society  to  be  governed  by  it.  In  the  absence  of  this, 
all  laws  must  remain  inoperative  and  ineffectual,  unless  force 
is  invoked  to  compel  their  execution.  When  the  fundament- 
al laws  of  a  country — that  is,  those  embodied  in  its  civil 
and  political  institutions — are  thus  framed,  there  must,  nec- 
essarily, be  an  entire  absence  of  popular  liberty.  Thus,  in 
a  monarchy  where  the  principle  of  popular  representation 
does  not  exist,  and  the  people  are  not  consulted  about  the 
laws,  obedience  to  them  is  enforced  by  some  superior  power, 
and  fear  alone  restrains  resistance.  But  in  a  republic  like 
ours,  where  virtue  and  intelligence  are  stimulated  by  the 
structure  of  both  government  and  society,  the  fundamental 
laws  are  not  only  executed,  but  preserved,  without  force,  be- 
cause they  have  their  foundation  in  the  consent  of  the  peo- 
ple. Therefore,  under  monarchical  absolutism,  the  citizen 
feels  but  little  sense  of  personality ;  while  in  the  freedom  of 
a  republic  he  feels  it  in  so  high  a  degree  as  to  develop  his 
manhood,  and  cause  him  to  realize  the  individual  interest  he 
has  in  continuing  the  institutions  which  secure  to  him  both 
defense  and  protection. 

All  mankind  derive  from  nature  the  right  to  be  free,  and 
whatever  restraints  are  put  upon  this  right  by  law  are  only 
such  as  the  interest  and  necessities  of  society  require. 
Those  who  share  in  society  consent,  in  return  for  its  protec- 
tion, to  be  governed  by  such  laws.  Hence,  popular  liberty 
does  not  proceed  from  law,  is  not  the  result  of  it.  Wherev- 
er it  is  found  in  written  statutes,  it  is  there  because  the  peo- 
ple have  risen  up  to  the  point  of  asserting  it  against  the  an- 
tagonism of  monarchy ;  of  snatching  it  from  the  hands  of 
those  who  deny  it  to  them,  and  would  retain  the  means  of 
withholding  it,  by  defeating  all  its  civil  guarantees.  It  is 
the  expression  of  their  political  faith,  the  avowal  of  their 
determination  to  exist  as  a  society  or  a  nation  freed  from  all 
the  restraints  of  arbitrary  power.  Hence,  it  is  truthfully 
said  that  "liberty  does  not  dwell  in  the  palaces  of  kings." 
It  is  equally  true  that  it  exists  in  the  heart  and  conscience  of 
every  free  man.  In  this  sense,  it  is  a  personal  and  inalienable 
right  which  each  man  must  assert  for  himself  In  a  broader 
sense,  it  belongs  to  a  whole  community  ;  and  each  individual 
of  a  community  is  under  the  same  obligation  to  assert  and 


IMPERFECTIONS  OF  MONARCHICAL  LAW.      65 

maintain  it  for  those  who  share  it  with  him,  as  for  himself. 
It  thus  becomes  a  political  right,  requiring  combined  action 
to  continue  its  existence.  When,  as  the  result  of  this  com- 
bined action,  political  institutions  are  formed,  to  provide  for 
its  preservation,  as  in  the  United  States,  they,  necessarily,  ex- 
clude all  idea  of  force,  and  rest  upon  the  "consent  of  the  gov- 
erned." Sometimes  —  as  in  the  granting  of  Magna  Charta^ 
and  other  charters  by  the  English  crown — governments  pro- 
fess to  have  conferred  liberty.  But,  viewed  properly,  this  is 
an  absurdity;  for  to  assert  that  a  government  has  the  right 
to  confer  or  withhold  it  as  it  pleases,  is  to  deny  its  existence 
under  the  law  of  nature.  All  these  are  familiar  truisms ;  but 
it  is  because  they  are  true,  and  their  truth  is  recognized  in 
every  heart,  that  they  give  birth  to  the  "firm  and  resolute 
spirit  with  which  the  liberal  mind  is  always  pi-epared  to  re- 
sist indignities,  and  to  refer  its  safety  to  itself." 

Where  the  form  of  government  is  an  absolute  monarchy, 
laws  proceed  from  the  sole  and  independent  will  of  the  ruler, 
whether  he  be  called  emperor,  king,  or  pope,  and  rely  wholly 
upon  force  for  their  execution.  But  where  the  form  is  re- 
publican, or  democratic,  as  with  us,  no  such  force  is  required, 
because  the  obedience  of  the  citizen  springs  from  his  own 
Consent.  Between  these  two  opposing  systems  of  govern- 
ment, our  Revolutionary  fathers  were  obliged  to  make  a 
Selection.  That,  in  choosing  the  latter,  they  acted  wisely 
and  well,  every  man  who  is  worthy  of  free  citizenship  will 
maintain.  Their  example  has  already  shorn  monarchy  of 
much  of  its  strength,  and  it  is  not  the  time  now,  when  abso- 
lutism is  trembling  in  the  presence  of  popular  representation, 
to  abate  our  veneration  for  their  memory,  or  our  affection 
for  their  work. 

Some  of  the  leading  nations  exist  in  an  intermediate  state 
between  these  two  forms.  They  have  united  the  represent- 
ative with  the  monarchical  principle,  but  only  so  far  as  to 
make  some  unavoidable  concessions  to  the  popular  sentiment 
of  liberty,  and  not  far  enough  to  recognize  its  just  and  prop- 
er measure  of  influence  upon  society,  or  entirely  to  dispense 
with  the  presence  of  force.  These  governments  have  ad- 
vanced somewhat  from  a  condition  of  absoluti'sm ;  some  of 
them  less  readily  and  rapidly  than  others,  accordingly  as 


66  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

fear  of  the  people  has  been  weaker  or  stronger  in  the  minds 
of  their  despotic  rulers. 

To  trace  out'  and  observe  the  influences  produced  upon 
the  world  by  these  opposing  systems  of  government,  and  to 
understand  the  nature  and  extent  of  their  results,  furnishes 
to  the  thoughtful  mind  a  true  conception  of  the  philosophy 
of  history.  In  the  pursuit  of  such  an  inquiry,  however,  the 
friends  of  free  popular  government  must  not  concede  to  the 
advocates  of  absolutism  that  the  times  in  which  we  live  are 
suited  for  additional  experiments  in  the  art  of  governing,  in 
order  to  decide  which  form  of  political  institutions  is  most 
conducive  to  human  happiness.  These  experiments  have 
been  already  and  sufiiciently  made,  and  all  of  them  combine 
to  prove  —  what  this  philosophy  of  history  teaches  —  that 
the  freer  and  more  popular  the  government,  the  happier  and 
more  prosperous  are  the  people.  In  such  governments, 
where  civil  institutions  are  established  for  themselves  by  an 
intelligent  and  virtuous  people,  force  is  never  required  to 
secure  the  execution  of  the  fundamental  laws.  Where  there 
is  a  power  superior  to  the  people  to  prescribe  the  law,  so 
much  force  is  always  necessary  that  liberty  can  not  exist  in 
its  presence. 

The  people  of  the  United  States  have  nothing  to  fear  or 
to  lose  by  the  closest  scrutiny  of  their  institutions,  especial- 
ly in  the  light  of  the  lessons  of  history  and  past  experiments 
in  government.  The  unbiased  judgment  of  the  civilized 
world,  in  the  absence  of  the  fear  of  coercive  authority,  will 
agree  with  them  in  the  opinion,  that  the  form  of  government 
which  gives  the  greatest  elevation  to  society  is  that  in 
which  all  the  fundamental  laws  reflect  an  intelligent  pop- 
ular will.  Therefore,  we  may  well  regard  such  a  form  as 
central  among  the  governments  of  the  earth,  as  the  sun  is 
the  centre  of  the  planetary  system.  We  may  extend  the 
figure  one  step  further,  without  the  exhibition  of  an  undue 
degree  of  national  vanity;  for  if  the  light  which  it  sends 
out  over  the  nations  were  obscured,  it  would  inevitably  lead 
to  the  complete  triumph  of  imperialism,  as  all  nature  would 
be  darkened  if  the  light  of  the  sun  were  extinguished. 

Accordingly  as  we  are  the  advocates  of  absolutism  or  of 
popular  government,  we  will  condemn  or  approve  the  theory 


PASSIVE  OBEDIENCE  AND  MONARCHISM.  67 

of  American  government.  The  absolutist  insists  that  each 
step  in  the  departure  of  nations  from  the  monarchical  form 
is  receding  that  far  from  the  true  point  of  national  eleva- 
tion; that  it  is  an  abandonment  of  legitimate  authority; 
that  it  is  passion,  vertigo,  delirium,  madness,  the  excess  of 
unlicensed  and  destructive  revolution  —  a  blind  exercise  of 
the  mere  physical  power  to  do  wrong,  in  violation  of  the 
divine  law.  With  him,  the  fewer  who  direct  the  destiny  of 
a  nation  and  control  its  government,  the  better,  because,  by 
keeping  the  multitude  in  subjection,  they  hold  them  to  the 
steady  line  of  duty.  Unlimited  dominion  on  the  part  of  the 
ruler,  and  passive  obedience  on  the  part  of  the  people,  are, 
with  all  the  supporters  of  absolutism,  the  ne  plus  ultra  of 
government.  Of  those  who  reason  thus,  there  are  two  class- 
es— the  masters  and  the  slaves.  The  latter  are  so  disci- 
plined into  subjugation  by  the  former,  that  they  seem  inca- 
pable of  comprehending  the  nature  and  extent  of  their  deg- 
radation, and  suppose  themselves  to  be  relieved  from  the 
galling  of  their  chains,  or  to  be  compensated  for  its  endur- 
ance, by  the  belief  that  their  servitude  is  the  highest  and 
noblest  exhibition  of  fidelity  and  duty.  The  former  main- 
tain their  superiority  with  an  entire  disregard  of  the  humili- 
ation they  create,  and  cling  to  their  ideas  of  human  and  na- 
tional advancement,  in  the  face  of  the  present  condition  of 
the  world,  as  if  they  regarded  ambition  the  highest  motive 
of  the  mind,  and  its  gratification  the  greatest  of  all  human 
achievements.  Socrates,  probably,  had  both  these  classes  in 
his  mind  when  he  said, "  That  every  master  should  pray  he 
may  not  meet  with  such  a  slave ;  and  every  such  person, 
being  unfit  for  liberty,  should  implore  that  he  may  meet 
with  a  merciful  master."  If  all  the  world  were  divided  into 
these  two  classes,  monarchy,  secure  of  its  place  upon  the 
papal  and  other  thrones,  would  have  an  easy  time  of  it,  for 
there  then  would  be  only  the  oppressor  and  the  oppressed — 
"  the  oppressor  who  demands,  and  the  oppressed  who  dare 
not  resist." 

Fortunately  for  us  and  the  world,  the  framers  of  our  in- 
stitutions belonged  to  neither  of  these  classes.  By  their 
training  in  the  school  of  Protestantism  they,  were  endowed 
with  the  courage  to  defy  both  the  authority  and  machina- 


68  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

tions  of  those  who  claimed  the  "divine  right"  to  govern. 
Their  careful  study  of  the  history  of  nations  enabled  them 
to  comprehend  fully  the  necessities  of  their  condition.  They 
had  realized  how  abject  mankind  had  become  in  those  coun- 
tries where  Church  and  State  were  united,  and,  with  this 
experience  to  guide  them,  signalized  their  efforts  to  frame  a 
new  government  by  dissolving  this  union,  as  an  unnatural 
and  corrupting  one.  Ecclesiastical  tyranny  and  intolerance 
were  finally  expelled,  and  Protestantism  reached  a  degree 
of  development  for  which  it  had  been  struggling  for  more 
than  two  hundred  years. 

Thomas  Jefferson  took  an  early  opportunity  to  congratu- 
late the  people  of  the  United  States  upon  their  "having 
banished  from  our  land  that  religious  intolerance  under 
which  mankind  so  long  bled  and  suffered,"  and,  under  the 
sanction  of  his  official  position,  declared  that  among  the 
great  principles  which  "  guided  our  steps  through  an  age  of 
revolution  and  reformation"  were  those  which  inculcated 
"  the  diffusion  of  information,  and  arraignment  of  all  abuses 
at  the  bar  of  public  reason,  freedom  of  religion,  freedom  of 
thepress^''     And  he  addressed  to  us  this  admonition  : 

"The  wisdom  of  our  sages,  and  the  blood  of  our  heroes, 
have  been  devoted  to  their  attainment:  they  should  be  the 
creed  of  our  political  faith,  the  text  of  civic  instruction,  the 
touch-stone  by  which  to  try  the  services  of  those  we  trust;  and 
should  we  wander  from  them  in  moments  of  error  and 
alarm,  let  us  hasten  to  retrace  our  steps,  and  to  regain  the 
road  which  alone  leads  to  peace,  liberty,  and  safety." 

James  Madison,  when  officially  declaring  the  purposes 
for  which  our  government  was  formed,  enumerated  among 
them  the  duty  "  to  avoid  the  slightest  interference  with  the 
rights  of  conscience,  or  the  functions  of  religion,  so  wisely 
exempted  from  civil  jurisdiction ;  to  preserve,  in  their  full 
energy,  the  other  salutary  provisions  in  behalf  of  private 
and  personal  rights,  and  of  the  freedom  of  the  press." 

These  sentiments  were  not  alone  expressed  by  these  great 
statesmen.  Words  of  like  import  were  uttered  by  many  of 
their  compatriots.  They  were  but  the  echo  of  those  exist- 
ing in  the  minds  of  the  people,  and  were  embodied  in  our 
national  Constitution,  in  these  words : 


PRINCIPLES  THAT  MUST  BE  PRESERVED.  69 

"  Congress  shall  make  no  law  respecting  an  establishment 
of  religion,  or  prohibiting  the  free  exercise  thereof;  or 
abridging  the  freedom  of  speech,  or  of  the  press ;  or  the 
right  of  the  people  peaceably  to  assemble,  and  to  petition 
the  Government  for  a  redress  of  grievances." 

Upon  such  foundations  as  this,  the  superstructure  of  our 
government  now  rests.  So  long  as  these  principles  shall  be 
preserved,  the  Government  will  stand :  whenever  they  shall 
be  abandoned,  it  will  fall.  They  must,  therefore,  be  guarded 
with  the  same  ceaseless  care  as  that  with  which  we  guard 
our  lives.  For  we  have  no  more  right  to  lose  by  neglect, 
than  we  have  to  strike  down  with  the  sword  of  rebellion, 
the  civil  and  religious  institutions  of  a  free  people. 


70  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 


CHAPTER  III. 

War  against  Protestantism. — Roman  Catholic  Literature  and  Intolerance. — 
The  Bible  to  be  Closed. — The  Spanish  Inquisition  Justified. — Freedom  of 
Thought  Denounced  as  Sin. — Tracts  in  Favor  of  the  Pope's  Infallibility, 
and  Universal  Supremacy  in  Faith  and  Morals. — Morals  Involve  Politics. 
— "The  Index  Expurgatorius." — Condemnation  and  Punishment  of  Gali- 
leo.— Spanish  Inquisition. — The  Middle  Ages  Preferred  to  the  Present 
Times. 

There  is  nothing  better  understood  than  that  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  requires  all  its  members  to  believe  that  the 
Church  was  established  at  Rome  by  the  apostle  Peter,  in 
obedience  to  the  express  command  of  Christ,  who  gave  him 
primacy  over  the  other  apostles  for  that  purpose;  that  it 
has  possessed,  from  the  beginning,  an  external  organization 
composed  of  the  pope  and  his  army  of  official  dependents, 
who  derive,  directly  from  God,  the  authority  of  its  exclusive 
government,  and  that  all  who  desire  eternal  salvation  must 
become  subject  to  this  authority,  because  there  is  not,  and 
can  not  be,  any  other  true  Church.  From  the  very  nature 
of  things,  a  church  asserting  such  exclusiveness  must  be  ag- 
gressive. This  all-absorbing  organization  can  not  be  main- 
tained in  any  other  way.  And  that  it  is  aggressive  and  un- 
compromising is  shown  by  its  whole  history,  and  by  repeat- 
ed and  emphatic  avowals  of  its  supporters;  especially  of 
those  who  share  its  authority  and  are  tireless  in  their  exer- 
tions to  maintain  it. 

Having  found  Protestantism  the  most  formidable  oppo- 
nent it  ever  encountered  to  its  system  of  exclusiveness,  it 
has  contrived  to  keep  alive  in  the  minds  of  multitudes  of 
its  members  a  stubborn  hostility  to  every  advance  among 
the  nations,  and  every  improvement  in  their  condition,  cal- 
culated to  drive  it  from  the  field,  of  which,  before  Protest- 
antism became  its  rival,  it  had  the  undisputed  possession. 
Having  regarded  the  world  for  many  centuries  as  entirely 
subject  to  its  dominion,  and  deriving  therefrom  a  conviction 


THE  MOST  SECURE  SHIELD  OF  CATHOLICISM.  71 

of  its  supremacy  over  mankind,  it  has  been  unwilling  to  rec- 
ognize Protestantism  as  an  equal,  entitled  to  be  conciliated, 
but  has  habitually  considered  it  as  an  enemy,  to  be  extermi- 
nated and  destroyed.  No  matter  what  concessions  it  has 
obtained,  or  to  what  extent  it  has  enjoyed  the  advantages 
of  Protestant  protection  and  toleration,  there  has  never  been 
any  abatement  of  its  imperious  demands,  or  any  softening 
of  its  aggressive  character.  In  the  United  States,  where  it 
has  enjoyed  every  possible  degree  of  security  which  the 
laws  and  public  sentiment  can  confer,  its  hostility  to  Prot- 
estantism has  never  been  so  open,  active,  and  violent  as  it 
is  to-day.  The  tolerance  of  our  institutions  has  had  the  ef- 
fect of  awakening  energies  which  seem  to  have  been  only 
slumbering.  It  has  been,  manifestly,  awaiting  a  more  ef- 
fective concentration  of  its  strength,  so  that  whensoever  it 
shall  strike  its  blows  they  may  be  more  powerful  and  dan- 
gerous. A  scrutinizing  observer  can  not  avoid  the  convic- 
tion that  the  moderation  it  has  hitherto  exhibited  has  been 
suggested  by  expediency  and  policy  —  not  principle  —  and 
practiced,  in  order  to  gain,  by  degrees  and  unobserved,  such 
a  position  that  it  may  resume  its  accustomed  attitude  of 
defiance  and  intolerance,  and  assert  for  itself  the  "  divine 
right"  of  sitting  in  judgment  over  our  Constitution  and  laws. 
It  is  worthy  of  frequent  repetition,  that  there  is  no  coun- 
try in  the  world  where  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  and  its 
hierarchy  are  better  or  more  securely  shielded,  in  all  the 
just  rights  of  religion,  property,  and  person,  than  they  are 
in  the  United  States.  They  are  nowhere  deprived  of  any 
single  religious  or  civil  privilege  which  other  churches  and 
people  enjoy.  The  Protestant  communities  in  all  the  States 
have  universally  recognized  them  as  entitled  to  the  same 
protection  they  have  secured  to  themselves.  In  this  they 
have  been  consistent  with  the  Protestantism  they  profess, 
which  is  not  aggressive,  but  tolerant  and  charitable ;  not 
malignant,  but  conciliatory.  And  this  liberality  has  been 
shown  them,  notwithstanding  Roman  Catholicism  has,  at 
the  same  time,  in  countries  where  it  has  had  the  power,  not 
only  denied  to  Protestantism  any  equality  of  privileges  or 
protection  with  itself,  but  has  subjected  it  to  continual  per- 
secution and  indignities.     Yet,  in  the  face  of  all  this,  these 


72  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

same  hierarchs  who  have  enjoyed  these  advantages  are  now 
actively  organizing  themselves,  and  their  followers,  as  far 
as  they  can  influence  them,  into  an  ecclesiastical  army,  for 
the  vigorous  prosecution  of  a  war  which  they  avow  their 
purpose  to  carry  on  unceasingly  until  Protestantism  shall  be 
driven  from  the  field,  entirely  subdued  and  overthrown,  and 
all  that  it  has  done  shall  be  obliterated  from  history,  so  that 
the  world  shall  be  made  to  bow  before  the  papal  sceptre. 

We  should  not  deceive  ourselves  or  be  deceived  by  oth- 
ers. It  is  frequently  and  properly  said  that  we  must,  by  all 
means,  avoid  a  religious  war ;  and  all  our  best  impulses  ad- 
monish us  to  guard  against  so  terrible  a  calamity.  It  should 
be  the  fervent  prayer  of  every  good  man,  that  Providence 
may  so  direct  the  events  before  us  that  such  a  misfortune 
may  never  again  befall  the  world,  especially  that  it  may 
never  befall  a  country  like  ours,  where  so  much  pains  has 
been  taken  to  construct  a  government  with  the  idea  that 
Christians  ought  to  dwell  together  in  harmony  and  broth- 
erly love,  as  one  of  its  cardinal  principles.  Protestantism 
can  make  no  such  war,  and  can  take  no  part  in  it,  except 
when  driven  to  that  extremity  by  the  absolute  necessity  of 
^elf-defense.  It  has,  thus  far,  proved  the  only  power  suffi- 
piently  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  toleration  and  the  brother- 
hood of  man,  to  discard  entirely  the  engines  of  torture  and 
persecution,  and  to  substitute  for  them  the  mild  and  con- 
ciliatory precepts  and  doctrines  of  the  Gospel.  All  such 
wars  have  hitherto  been  the  work  of  those  who  claim  to  be 
the  exclusive  custodians  of  the  true  faith,  and  who,  under 
the  influence  of  this  sentiment,  are  made  exacting,  aggress- 
ive, and  uncompromising  ;  and  not  the  work  of  those  whose 
liberalizing  Christianity  gives  play  to  all  the  charities  of 
life  and  all  the  best  aflTections  of  the  heart,  and  whose  relig- 
ion is  founded  on  love. 

But  can  we  confidently  proinise  ourselves  that  we  shall 
escape  a  religious  war?  The  danger  lying  before  us,  and 
possibly  not  far  off",  is,  that  such  a  war  may  be  precipitated 
upon  us  in  spite  of  ourselves — not  necessarily  a  war  of 
bloody  battle-fields,  but  of  aroused,  excited,  and  angry  pas- 
sions, which,  intensified  by  sectarian  hatred  and  partisan  vio- 
lence, may,  by  possibility,  lead  to  the  same  deplorable  results 


ATTACK  ON  PKOTESTANTISM.  73 

which  have  followed  similar  conflicts  elsewhere.  The  papa- 
cy, if  history  speaks  truly,  has,  in  its  wonderful  progress, 
made  many  such  wars ;  and  as  it  claims  never  to  have  had 
any  change  or  "  shadow  of  turning"  in  the  pursuit  of  its  ob- 
jects, its  power  to  inaugurate  still  another  may  not  be  alto- 
gether lost.  Are  there  no  evidences  of  a  deeply  seated  and 
secretly  cherished  purpose  to  invite,  in  the  United  States,  a 
fierce  and  fiery  contest  between  the  hierarchy  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  acting  for  the  papacy,  and  those  who  pro- 
fess the  principles  of  Protestant  Christianity  ?  The  answer 
to  such  a  question  as  this  can  not  be  expected  in  any  open 
and  public  avowals:  the  purposes  of  cunning  and  experienced 
adversaries  are  not  usually  revealed.  But  some  light  is 
thrown  upon  it  by  the  literature  which  those  who  compose 
this  hierarchy  are  now  scattering  broadcast  over  the  land, 
contained  in  books,  magazines,  pamphlets,  newspapers,  and 
tracts;  silent  messengers,  which  convey  words  of  authority  and 
command  to  the  faithful,  which  they  are  required  not  to  diso- 
bey, under  the  penalty  of  committing  an  offense  against  God ! 
There  appeared  in  France,  only  a  few  years  ago,  a  small 
work,  which  has  been  translated  into  English,  republished 
in  this  country,  and  is  now  sold  by  leading  Roman  Catholic 
book-sellers  in  our  principal  cities.  Extraordinary  pains 
has  been  taken  to  secure  for  it  a  large  circulation,  so  that 
it  may  reach  all  the  members  of  that  Church,  and  be  read 
by  them.  It  has  a  suggestive  title — "  Plain  Talk  about  the 
Protestantism  of  To-day" — and  professes  to  be  a  talk  "with 
Catholics  rather  than  with  Protestants,"  in  order  that  they 
may  be  instructed  as  to  their  duty.  It  is  written  in  a  spirit 
peculiarly  offensive  and  aggressive,  and  treats  Protestant- 
ism as  having  "  melted  away  in  rationalism  and  infidelity," 
and  as  exhibiting  nothing  of  a  religious  nature  "but  the 
ruins,"  which  are  only  "  a  source  of  annoyance,"  because, 
"however  dismal  they  appear,  they  still  afford  a  refuge  to 
the  wicked  who  dare  not  show  themselves  on  the  highways," 
that  is,  that,  these  Protestant  ruins  are  only  a  shelter  for 
such  as  dare  not  confront  the  indignation  of  those  who  serve 
the  papacy  !(^)     It  is  an  artful  and  cunningly  contrived  at- 

(^)  "Plain  Talk   about   the  Protestantism  of  To-day,"  by  Mgr.   Segur, 
part  i.,  prop,  xv.,  p.  45.     "  God  detests  and  curses  "  it. — Ibid.,  p.  12. 


74  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

tack  upon  Protestantism  throughout  the  world,  and  although 
designed  especially  to  stimulate  the  Roman  Catholics  of 
France  into  antagonism  against  the  Protestants  of  that 
country,  yet  its  republication  and  circulation  in  the  Uni- 
ted States,  under  the  immediate  patronage  of  the  hierarchy, 
furnishes  undoubted  evidence  of  their  approval  of  its  con- 
tents, and  of  their  design  to  transfer  the  attack  from  Europe 
to  this  country.  It  is  a  bold  and  direct  challenge  to  the 
contest  it  invites,  and  conclusively  proves  that  the  war  will 
go  on,  whether  Protestants  take  part  in  it  or  not. 

Assuming,  with  the  dogmatic  air  of  superiority  so  com- 
mon with  all  this  class  of  writers,  that  the  Protestant  forms 
of  religion  are"  no  religion  at  all^  because  they  reject  the 
authority  and  teachings  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  the 
author  makes  this  announcement : 

"After  having  rejected  the  Church,  Protestantism  rejects 
Jesus  Christ;  after  having  rejected  Jesus  Christ,  it  must  reject 
God  himself^  and  thus  it  will  have  accomplished  its  work.''\^) 

At  another  place,  in  further  continuation  of  the  same  idea, 
he  says, 

"  The  Protestant,  whether  he  believes  it  or  not,  is  an  infi- 
del in  germ^  and  the  infidel  is  a  Protestant  in  full  bloom. 

''^Infidelity  exists  in  Protestantism  as  the  oak  exists  in  the 
acorn,  as  the  consequence  is  in  the  premise."(^) 

The  unmistakable  design  in  this  formal  arraignment  of  all 
Protestants  as  infidels — to  say  nothing  of  its  want  of  truth 
and  Christian  charity — is  to  keep  the  papal  followers  in  re- 
membrance of  what  their  Church  dogmatically  and  imperi- 
ously teaches :  that  all  other  religion  besides  their  own  is 
false  and  heretical,  and  that  it  is  their  duty,  both  to  God  and 
the  Church,  to  oppose  and  resist  Protestantism  to  the  ex- 
tremity of  total  extermination.  With  this  thought  continu- 
ally present  in  their  minds,  it  is  doubtless  supposed  that  they 
can  be  kept  in  readiness  at  all  times  for  any  future  emer- 
gency. And  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  bringing  about 
this  unity  are  much  less  than  many  suppose  j  although  in 
this  country  they  are  gradually  diminishing  under  the  lib- 

C)  "Plain  Talk  about  the  Protestantism  of  To-day,"  by  Mgr.  Segur,  part 
i.,  prop,  xvi.,  p.  .'SS. 

(')  Ibid,,  part  iii.,  prop,  xviii.,  p.  243. 


PAPAL  EXCLUSIVENESS.  75 

eralizing  influence  of  our  institutions.  They  are  sufficiently- 
great,  however,  even  here,  to  demand  thoughtful  attention. 
The  "  profession  of  faith,"  promulgated  by  Pope  Pius  IV. 
after  the  Council  of  Trent,  and  reproclaimed  by  Pope  Pius 
IX.,  declares  that  "  no  one  can  be  saved  "  who  believes  oth- 
erwise than  according  to  the  faith  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church;  and  requires  all  thus  believing  to  "promise  true 
obedience  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome,"(')  as  an  absolutely  nee 
essary  and  indispensable  part  of  the  true  faith.  What  are 
the  nature  and  extent  of  this  "  true  obedience  "  will  sufficient- 
ly appear  elsewhere.  For  the  present,  it  is  only  necessary  to 
observe  with  what  unerring  certainty  each  step  in  the  pa- 
pal system  leads  to  this  obedience,  it  being  recognized  ev- 
erywhere as  a  necessary  part  of  the  true  faith. 

Inasmuch  as  the  duty  of  obedience  requires  that  there 
should  exist  somewhere  a  governing  authority  having  the 
right  to  demand  and  exact  it  in  case  of  refusal,  this  author 
proceeds  to  show  what  it  is,  and  in  whose  hands  it  is  lodged. 
He  says,  "The  teaching  of  the  Church  is  the  true  rule  of 
faith ;"  a  declaration  with  which  liberal-minded  Protestants 
would  not  be  disposed  to  find  any  fault,  if  there  had  not 
been  in  its  government  so  radical  a  departure  from  the  prac- 
tices of  the  apostolic  times.  But,  in  order  to  exclude  the 
idea  that  the  Church,  as  a  whole,  has  any  right  to  participate 
in  the  declaration  of  the  faith,  or  can  have  any  authority 
through  its  representative  bodies,  he  says  that  Christ  ap- 
pointed "  twelve  among  his  disciples,  and  sent  them  forth  to 
the  world  to  teach  in  his  name,  and  with  his  authority,  the 
Christian  religion,"  and  that  "  the  pastors  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  ascending  through  a  legitimate  and  uninterrupted 
procession  to  St.  Peter  and  the  other  apostles,  have  exer- 
cised, and  do  exercise,  this  ministry ;"  there  being,  of  course, 
no  teaching  authority  in  the  world  besides  what  they  pos- 
sess.    And  for  fear  that  some  inquisitive  mind  might  con- 

(*)  The  following  pledge  is  required  as  a  condition  of  membership :  "I  ac- 
knowledge the  Holy  Catholic  Apostolic  Romlhn  Church  for  the  mother  and 
mistress  of  all  churches,  and  I  promise  true  obedience  to  the  Bishop  ofRome^ 
successor  to  St.  Peter,  Prince  of  the  Apostles,  and  Vicar  of  Jesus  Christ." — 
The  Grounds  of  the  Catholic  Doctrine,  Contained  in  the  Profession  of  Faith 
published  by  Pope  Pius  IX.,  1855,  p.  G. 


76  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

elude  that  this  teaching  authority  was  not  infallible,  on  ac- 
count of  the  heretical  tendencies  of  some  and  the  personal 
unworthiness  of  others  of  these  pastors,  he  proceeds  still  fur- 
ther to  exclude  all  idea  of  church  representation  by  concen- 
trating the  whole  of  it  in  the  hands  of  the  pope.  With  him, 
this  official  functionary  of  the  Church  is  the  Church  itself 
Whatsoever  authority  Christ  gave  to  the  Church,  he  gave 
to  him  alone.  As  the  authority  conferred  by  Christ  was  di- 
vine, therefore  his  authority  is  divine  also.  As  whatsoever 
was  spoken  by  Christ  were  the  utterances  of  God  himself, 
therefore  when  the  pope  commands  in  all  the  domain  of  faith 
and  morals,  it  is  God  who  commands.     Thus  he  defines  it : 

"And  in  what  does  this  ministry  consist?  l^\\2it  power 
which  is  derived  from  Jesus  Christ  himself,  and  by  which 
fallible  men  teach  us  infallibly^  and  infallibly  lead  us  in  the 
path  of  salvation  ?  It  is  the  authority  of  the  Church,  to  wit, 
the  authority  of  the  sovereign  pontiff,  successor  of  St.  Peter, 
head  of  the  Church,  and  the  authority  of  the  bishops,  coadju- 
tors to  the  pope  in  the  grand  work  of  the  salvation  of  men. 

This  divine  authority,  intrusted  as  it  is  to  the  hands  of 
men,  is  the  true,  the  only  rule  of  faith.  It  has  been  thus 
believed  in  all  Christian  ages;  it  has  been  thus  taught  by 
all  doctors  and  fathers  of  the  Church.  We  have  to  believe 
ONLY  what  the  pope  and  the  bishops  teach.  We  have  to  reject 
only  that  which  the  pope  and  the  bishops  condemn  and  reject. 
Should  a  point  of  doctrine  appear  doubtful,  we  have  only  to 
address  ourselves  to  tlie  pope  and  to  the  bishops  in  order  to 
know  what  to  believe.  Only  from  that  tribunal,  forever  liv- 
ing and  forever  assisted  by  God,  emanates  the  judgment  on 
religious  belief,  and  particularly  on  the  true  sense  of  the 
Scriptures."  (') 

Thus  the  personality  of  the  believer  is  merged  in  the  su- 
perior personality  of  the  pope.  All  right  of  personal  in- 
quiry is  taken  away  from  him.  Whatsoever  the  pope, 
through  the  bishop,  shall  command  the  believer  to  accept, 
that  he  shall  accept ;  whatsoever  to  reject,  that  he  shall  re- 
ject ;  and  whatsoever  to  do,  that  he  shall  do.  If  he  obey, 
he  shall  be  saved  ;  if  he  refuse,  he  shall  be  damned.    There  is 

O  Mgr.  Segur,  part  iii.,  prop,  ix.,  p.  105. 


ATTACK  ON  THE  BIBLE.  77 

no  middle  ground,  no  room  for  hesitation  or  doubt.  The 
authority  is  omnipotent,  and  the  obedience  must  be  thor- 
ough and  complete. 

Succeeding  thus,  as  he  supposes,  in  eradicating  from  the 
mind  all  sentiments  of  individuality,  and  any  advantages  to 
be  derived  from  an  intelligent  private  judgment,  he  directs 
his  readers  that  they  shall  not  look  to  the  Bible  as  furnish- 
ing a  proper  and  sufficient  rule  of  Christian  faith.     He  says  : 

"  The  Bible  contains  naught  but  what  is  the  teaching  of 
God.  And  yet  the  Bible  is  not,  the  Bible  can  not  be,  the 
rule  of  our  faith,  in  the  Protestant  sense.    • 

"Why? 

^^ First.  The  Bible  can  not  be  the  rule  of  our  faith,  because 
Jesus  Christ  has  not  said  to  his  disciples, '  Go  and  carry  the 
Bible,'  but  he  said,'  Go  and  teach  all  nations.  He  that  hear- 
eth  you  heareth  me.'"f) 

The  nature  of  our  present  inquiries  does  not  require  such 
a  discussion  here  as  is  invited  from  the  theologian  by  this 
extract;  yet  the  passing  remark  may  be  indulged,  that 
when  Christ  said, "  Search  the  Scriptures,  for  in  them  ye 
have  eternal  life  :  and  they  are  they  which  testify  of  me,"(') 
he  fixed  no  limitation  upon  the  number  who  should  do  so, 
and  was  addressing  the  Jews  who  were  persecuting  him  for 
healing  the  impotent  man  on  the  Sabbath-day,  and  was  not 
reproaching  the  Pharisees  merely  because  they  read  the 
Scriptures,  as  is  incorrectly  asserted  by  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church,  in  furtherance  of  the  doctrine  that  every  thing  must 
be  taken  from  the  pope  and  his  coadjutors  without  any  per- 
sonal investigation  of  the  Bible,  f)     By  shutting  up  the  Bi- 

(^)  Mgr.  Segur,  part  ii. ,  prop.  x. ,  p.  107. 

C)  John's  Gospel,  v.,  39. 

(f)  The  following  note  is  inserted  in  the  Douay,  or  Eoman  Catholic,  Bible, 
as  explanatory  of  John  v.,  39 ;  and  is  required  to  be  taken  as  a  part  of  the 
context,  and  as  if  uttered  by  Christ  himself: 

"It  is  not  a  command  for  all  to  read  the  Scriptures,  but  a  reproach  to  the 
Pharisees,  that,  reading  the  Scriptures  as  they  did,  and  thinking  to  find  ever- 
lasting life  in  them,  they  would  not  receive  Him  to  whom  all  those  Scriptures 
gave  testimony,  and  through  whom  alone  they  could  have  that  true  life." 

The  Pharisees  were  a  sect  of  the  Jews,  distinguished  from  the  Sadducees 
because  of  their  strictness  in  interpreting  the  law.  When  'referred  to  in  the 
Gospels,  they  are  specially  named.     But  when  mention  is  made  of  the  Jews, 


78  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

ble,  or  allowing  it  only  to  be  read  with  accompanying  ex- 
planations of  certain  passages — which  explanations  are  to 
be  taken  as  infallibly  true — it  is  designed  to  stifle  all  per- 
sonal investigation  of  its  contents.  Such  has  always  been 
the  invariable  policy  of  the  Church ;  the  right  to  read  it  at 
all,  on  the  part  of  the  laity,  having  been  conceded  only  in 
obedience  to  the  popular  demand  occasioned  by  the  Refor- 
mation. And  this  policy  is  now  persisted  in  without  varia- 
tion, except  in  so  far  as  it  is  modified  by  circumstances.  In 
Roman  Catholic  countries  the  laity  know  but  little,  and  mul- 
titudes of  them  nothing,  of  the  contents  of  the  Bible.  But 
when  Roman  Catholicism  comes  in  direct  contact  with  Prot- 
estantism, it  allows  the  Bible  to  be  read  only  upon  the  con- 
dition that  he  who  reads  it  shall  not  employ  his  own  reason 
in  deciding  what  it  teaches,  but  shall  take  the  explanatory 
notes  attached  as  of  equal  validity  with  the  body  of  the 
book  itself;  that  is,  that  "  what  the  pope  and  the  bishops 
teach "  is  as  much  the  work  of  divine  inspiration  as  what 
the  apostles  and  the  prophets  taught.  (')      Manifestly,  the 


as  such,  all  the  Jews  are  included — both  Pharisees  and  Sadducees.  In  the 
chapter  from  which  the  above  text  is  taken  John  did  not  mention  the  Phari- 
sees at  all,  but  spoke  of  the  "feast  of  the  Jews  "  at  Jerusalem.  Therefore, 
he  addressed  himself  to  all  the  Jews,  and  not  alone  to  the  Pharisees. 

Q)  Pope  Pius  VII.  published  a  bull,  June  29th,  1816,  against  Bible  socie- 
ties, declaring  that  they  were  a  "  most  crafty  device,  by  which  the  very  foun- 
dations of  religion  are  undermined,"  and  prescribing  a  "remedy"  by  which 
to  "abolish  this  pestilence  as  far  as  possible."  He  thus  made  known  his  rem- 
edy :  "It  is,  therefore,  necessary  to  adhere  to  the  salutaiy  decree  of  the  Con- 
gregation of  the  Index  (June  13th,  1757),  that  no  versions  of  the  Bible  in 
the  vulgar  tongue  be  permitted,  except  such  as  are  approved  by  the  Apos- 
tolic See  or  published  with  annotations  extracted  from  the  writings  of  holy 
fathers  of  the  Church.''' — Niles's  Weekly  Register,  1817,  vol.  xii.,  p.  206, 
where  this  bull  is  published  as  a  part  of  the  current  history  of  those  times. 

Pope  Gregory  XVI.  published  another  bull,  May  8th,  1844,  confirming 
and  renewing  the  foregoing  bull  of  Pius  VII.,  also  similar  bulls  issued  by 
Leo  XII.  and  Pius  VIII.,  and  especially  one  by  Benedict  XTV.  Referring 
to  the  latter,  he  says :  "It  became  necessary  for  Benedict  XIV.  to  superadd 
the  injunction  that  no  versions  whatever  should  be  suffered  to  be  read  but 
those  which  should  be  approved  of  by  the  Holy  See,  accompanied  by  notes 
derived  from  the  writings  of  the  holy  fathers,  or  other  learned  and  Catholic 
attfAors."— Bowling's  History  of  Romanism,  p.  622. 

There  is  attached  to  the  American  edition  of  the  Douay  Bible,  published 


THE  PROTESTANT  BIBLE  DENOUNCED.  79 

fear  exists,  that,  in  the  present  condition  of  the  world,  when 
the  human  mind  is  stimulated  to  extraordinary  efforts  to 
search  out  the  truth  in  every  department  of  thought,  if  the 
laity  are  permitted  to  accept  such  impressions  as  the  Bible 
itself  will  leave  upon  their  minds,  the  papacy  will,  in  the 
end,  be  driven  from  the  field,  routed  and  discomfited.  For 
fear,  therefore,  that  this  mode  of  thoughtful  investigation 
should  prevail,  to  weaken  the  authority  of  the  pope  and  his 
bishops,  Mgr.  Segur  lays  down  this  rule  for  the  government 
of  the  faithful : 

"The  first  rule  is,  that  we  should  receive  both  the  text  and 
the  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures  from  the  legitimate  pas- 
tors of  the  Churchy  and  from  them  alonePi^'') 

But  he  does  not  leave  the  object  which  prompts  the  sup- 
pression of  the  free  circulation  and  perusal  of  the  Scriptures 
to  go  unexplained ;  for,  at  another  place,  he  says : 

"  The  Protestant  Bible  is  only  a  false  skin,  in  which  infi- 
delity and  revolution  wrap'themselves."(") 

By  these  gradual  approaches  he,  like  a  skillful  command- 
er, reaches  his  ultimate  object,  never  absent  from  his  mind, 
which  is  to  show  to  those  Roman  Catholics  to  whom  his 
book  is  specially  addressed  what  the  papacy  expects  of 
them  in  their  conduct  toward  Protestantism.  They  are  re- 
quired to  resist  and  oppose  it,  because  it  teaches  "  infideli- 
ty and  revolution,"  which  are  wrapped  up  in  the  Protestant 
Bible.  Thus  fixing  his  premise,  and  preparing  his  readers 
for  the  avowal,  he  ventures  upon  these  bold  and  reckless  as- 
sertions, which  are  made  the  more  important  by  their  repe- 
tition in  the  United  States : 

"  Wherever  Protestantism  has  a  sicay,  it  is  intolerant  and 


in  1837,  under  the  auspices  of  the  Provincial  Council  of  Baltimore,  the  fol- 
lowing "admonition:" 

"To  prevent  and  remedy  this  abuse,  and  to  guard  against  error,  it  was 
judged  necessary  to  forbid  the  reading  of  the  Scriptures  in  the  vulgar  lan- 
guage without  the  advice  and  permission  of  the  pastors  and  spiritual  guides 
whom  God  has  appointed  to  govern  his  Church. "  Both  by  the  letter  and  spirit 
of  this  "admonition"  the  Roman  Catholic  in  the  United  States  is  not  per- 
mitted to  read  the  Bible  "without  the  advice  and  permission"  of  his  priest! 

('")  Mgr.  Segur,  part  ii.,  prop,  xiv.,  p.  120. 

(")  Ibid.,  part  ii.,  prop,  xv.,  p.  125. 


80  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

persecuting.  Of  course,  not  everywhere  in  the  same  degree ; 
but  why  not  ?  Because  it  does  not  possess  everywhere  the 
same  degree  of  power.  To  persecute,  one  must  have  both 
will  and  power.  Fortunately,  Protestantism  can  not  always 
act  as  it  has  a  mind  to.  But  let  it  be  said  boldly,  in  fact, 
of  intolerance,  Protestantism  will  always  go  as  far  as  it  will 
dare:\''). 

Artfully  and  Jesuitically  injecting  this  poison  of  malig- 
nant falsehood  into  the  minds  of  the  passive  subjects  of  the 
papacy,  he  would,  of  course,  leave  his  work  but  half  accom- 
plished if  he  failed  to  suggest  to  them  in  what  spirit  and 
with  what  temper  this  hideous  and  deformed  monster  of 
Protestantism,  as  he  paints  it,  is  to  be  dealt  with  whereso- 
ever it  dares  to  set  up  its  illegitimate  authority  against 
that  of  the  "  Holy  See  of  Rome."  He  is  entitled  to  the 
credit  of  doing  it  without  disguise,  as  follows: 

'''The  Church  is  certainly  intolerant  in  matters  of  doctrine. 
True ;  and  we  glory  in  it !  Triith  is  of  itself  intolerant. 
In  religion,  as  in  mathematics,  what  is  true  is  true,  and 
what  is  false  is  false.  No  compromise  between  truth  and 
error ;  truth  can  not  compromise.  Such  concessions,  how- 
ever small,  would  prove  an  immediate  destruction  of  truth. 
Two  and  two  make  four :  it  is  a  truth.  Hence,  whoever  as- 
serts the  contrary,  utters  a  falsehood.  Let  it  be  an  error 
of  a  thousandth  or  of  a  millionth  part,  it  will  ever  be  false  to 
assert  that  two  and  two  do  not  make  four. 

"The  Church  proclaims  and  maintains  truths  as  certain 
as  the  mathematical  ones.  She  teaches  and  defends  truths 
with  as  much  intolerance  as  the  science  of  mathematics  de- 
fends hers.  And  what  more  logical  ?  The  Catholic  Church 
alone^  in  the  midst  of  so  many  different  sects,  avers  the  pos- 
session of  absolute  truth^  out  of  which  there  can  not  be  true 
Christianity.  She  alone  has  the  right  to  be,  she  alone  must 
be,  intolerant.  She  alone  will  and  must  say,  as  she  has  said 
through  all  ages  in  her  councils,  ''If  any  one  saith  or  be- 
lieveth  contrary  to  what  I  teach,  which  is  truth,  let  him  be 

ANATHEMA.'  "('') 

(")  Mgr.  Segiir,  part  iii.,  prop,  v.,  p.  IGO. 
(")  Ibid.^  part  iii.,  prop,  vi.,  p.  183. 


THE  SPANISH  INQUISITION.  81 

What  more  distinct  and  emphatic  avowal  could  be  made 
of  the  intolerance  and  aggressiveness  of  the  papacy,  of  its 
settled  purpose  to  remove  from  its  path  every  thing  that 
blocks  its  progress  toward  universal  dominion  ?  It  fixes  its 
curse  upon  every  adversary,  and  hounds  on  the  slaves  who 
do  the  bidding  of  its  hierarchy,  resolved  upon  no  compro- 
mise, but  only  upon  such  a  triumph  as  shall  make  its  vic- 
tory, if  won,  both  final  and  complete.  Therefore,  this  rev- 
erend libeler  of  Protestantism,  as  one  of  the  generals  of  its 
great  army,  seemingly  in  anticipation  of  such  a  triumph, 
passes  on  one  step  further,  that  he  may  develop  more  mi- 
nutely the  contemplated  plan  of  operations,  and  show  some 
of  the  effective  instrumentalities  which  are  to  be  employed 
in  the  more  practical  exhibition  of  intolerance,  so  that  the 
avowal  may  excite  in  the  minds  of  the  timid  and  cowardly 
a  wholesome  dread  of  papal  authority.  After  stating  that 
the  Spanish  Inquisition  was  established  by  Roman  Catho- 
lic governments^  as  an  "  ecclesiastical  i7istitution^'^  and  thus 
agreeing  that  it  had  the  sanction  and  approbation  of  the 
Church,  he  proceeds : 

"That  institution  you  may  value  as  you  choose;  you  are 
at  liberty  to  condemn  the  abuses  and  the  cruelties  of  which 
it  has  been  guilty  through  the  violence  of  political  passions 
and  the  character  of  the  Spaniard ;  yet  one  can  not  but  ac- 
knowledge, in  the  terrible  part  taken  by  the  clergy  in  its  tri- 
als^ THE  MOST  LEGITIMATE  AND  MOST  NATURAL  EXERCISE  OF 
ECCLESIASTICAL  AUTHORITY." (") 

This  language  is  so  plain  and  explicit  that  there  is  no 
room  for  doubt  about  its  import.  Its  meaning  is  sufiiciently 
seen  without  any  straining  of  the  most  ordinary  rules  of  in- 
terpretation. It  was  not  designed  for  Protestant  readers, 
but  was  avowedly  and  expressly  addressed  to  those  who 
were  supposed  to  be  ready  and  willing  listeners  to  the  words 
of  authority,  to  such  as  tamely  and  submissively  put  their 
manhood  into  the  keeping  of  ecclesiastical  superiors.  The 
Spanish  Inquisition !  Is  there  any  reader  so  ignorant  that 
he  needs  to  be  told  what  it  was  ?  Of  all  the  institutions 
ever  known  to  the  world,  or  ever  invented  by  human  inge- 

(")  Mgr.  Segur,  part  iii.,  prop,  vii.,  p.  186. 
6 


82  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

nuity,  it  was  the  most  cruel,  oppressive,  and  blood-thirsty. 
Its  thousands  of  victims,  whose  bones  were  crushed  with  its 
accursed  instruments  of  torture,  and  whose  groans  made  its 
priestly  officials  laugh  with  a  joy  akin  to  that  of  the  fiends 
of  hell,  still  cry  out  from  their  tombs  against  it.(")  Yet,  in 
the  nineteenth  century,  while  humanity  has  not  ceased  to 
shudder  at  the  thought  of  its  possible  revival,  the  press  of 
an  American  publishing  house(^®)  sends  forth  among  the  ad- 
herents of  Roman  Catholicism  in  the  United  States,  with  the 
sanction  and  approval  of  the  Roman  Catholic  bishop  of  Bos- 
ton,('^)  the  startling  avowal  that  this  horrible  instrument  of 

C®)  Jean  Antoine  Llorente  was  secretary  of  the  Inquisition  of  Spain,  and 
when  the  institution  was  suppressed  in  1809,  '10,  '11,  all  the  archives  were 
placed  at  his  disposal.  These  consisted  of  "unpublished  manuscripts  and 
papers,  mentioned  in  the  inventories  of  deceased  inquisitors."  They  were 
carefully  examined,  and  furnished  him  much  of  the  valuable  information 
communicated  in  his  published  "  History  of  the  Inquisition."  He  says  that 
the  "horrid  conduct  of  this  holy  office  weakened  the  power  and  diminished 
the  population  of  Spain  by  arresting  the  progress  of  arts,  sciences,  industry, 
and  commerce,  and  by  compelling  multitudes  of  families  to  abandon  the 
kingdom ;  by  instigating  the  expulsion  of  the  Jews  and  the  Moors,  and  by 
immolating  on  its  flaming  shambles  more  than  three  hundred  thousand  vic- 
tims //"  He  traces  its  history  with  gi-eat  minuteness  of  detail,  showing  its 
introduction  into  Aragon,  during  the  reign  of  Ferdinand  and  Isabella ;  the 
punishment  of  the  Albigenses  and  the  Jews  by  its  cruelties,  its  approval  by 
Popes  Sextus  IV.,  Innocent  VIII.,  and  others,  as  the  means  of  augmenting 
their  power ;  and  gives  the  harsh  and  unprecedented  rules  of  procedure  by 
which  it  was  governed.  One  of  those  rules  shows  how  necessary  it  was  con- 
sidered to  the  papacy,  and  that  it  was  employed  by  the  reverend  (!)  Inquisitors 
both  as  a  religious  and  political  institution.  It  required  all  witnesses  to  be 
asked,  in  general  terms,  "  if  they  had  ever  seen  or  heard  any  thing  which  was, 
or  appeared,  contrary  to  the  Catholic  faith,  or  the  rights  of  the  Inquisition." — 
Llorente's  History  of  the  Inquisition,  preface,  pp.  xiii.,  xvi. ;  chap,  v.,  p. 
30;  chap,  vi.,  p.  39;   chap,  ix.,  p.  60. 

C^)  Patrick  Donahoe,  Boston. 

(")  This  book  is  indorsed  with  the  sign  of  the  cross,  thus,  "Imprimatur, 
Joannes  Josephus,  Episcopus,  Boston." 

The  reader,  however,  should  not  be  misled  into  the  belief  that  this  was  the 
frst  attempt  to  recommend  the  Spanish  Inquisition  to  the  Roman  Catholics 
of  the  United  States.  In  1815  the  French  Comte  Le  Maistre  wrote  half  a 
dozen  letters  in  defense  of  this  institution.  He  said  of  it:  "2%e  Inquisition 
is,  in  its  very  nature,  good,  mild,  and  preservative.  It  is  the  universal,  in- 
delible character  of  every  ecclesiastical  institution ;  you  see  it  in  Rome,  and 
you  can  see  it  wherever  the  true  church  has  power." — La  Maistre's 


THE  INQUISITION  JUSTIFIED.  83 

persecution  is  "  the  most  legitimate  and  m,ost  natural  exercise 
of  ecclesiastical  authority  /"  And  more  than  one  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  journals  in  the  United  States  have  taken 
extraordinary  pains  to  commend  the  book,  in  which  this 
avowal  is  made,  to  their  readers.  The  Boston  Pilot^  a  paper 
of  large  circulation,  thus  advertises  it,  in  its  issue  of  Feb- 
ruary 20th,  1870:  ^^  Plain  Talk  about  the  Protestantism  of 
To-day.  Every  body  is  buying  it.  Prices :  neatly  bound,  60 
cents;  in  paper  covers,  25  cents;  by  the  hundred,  for  dis- 
tribution, $15.  Send  for  copies  to  distribute  among  your 
neighbors." 

Letters  on  the  Spanish  Inquisition,  p.  22.  Though  he  professed  to  treat 
it  as  "purely  royal,"  he  admitted  that  it  existed  in  Spain  "by  virtue  of  the 
bull  of  the  sovereign  pontiff.'''  He  says  that  the  grand  inquisitor  "is  al- 
ways either  an  archbishop  or  bishop." — Ibid.,  p.  39.  He  justifies  the  inflic- 
tion of  "  capital  punishment"  upon  those  who  attempt  to  subvert  the  "estab- 
lished religion"  of  a  nation;  which  means  that  the  pope,  as  "the  vicege- 
rent of  Christ,"  would  require  a  resort  to  this  remedy,  as  the  only  means  of 
obeying  the  divine  law,  wherever  the  Roman  Catholic  religion  is  the  religion 
of  the  state,  as  he  is  now  striving  to  make  it  in  the  United  States. — Ibid., 
pp.  52,  53.  He  says:  "A  sense  of  duty  obliges  me  to  say  that  an  here- 
siarch,  an  obstinate  heretic,  and  a  propagator  of  heresy,  should  indisputa- 
bly be  ranked  among  the  greatest  criminals." — Ibid.,  p.  59.  Again:  "I 
by  no  means  doubt  that  a  tribunal  of  this  description,  adapted  to  the  times, 
places,  and  characters  of  nations,  would  be  highly  useful  in  every  coun- 
try.'''—Ibid.,  p.  84.  He  speaks  of  the  ^'■demoniac  spirit  of  Puritanism''' 
(p.  127)  and  of  Protestantism,  as  '■'■  nicknamed  piety,  zeal,  faith,  reforma- 
tion, and  orthodoxy  "  (p.  130),  and  reaches  a  result  which  he  thus  expresses : 
"  Theory  and  experience  satisfactorily  prove  that  there  is  not,  that  there  can 
not  be,  a  steady  faith,  or  positive  religion,  properly  so  called,  in  a  nation 
whose  envoys  take  so  much  pains  to  abolish  what  they  and  others,  through 
malice,  call  the  detestable  Inquisition''  (p.  156),  because  it  is  "one  of  the 
mildest  and  wisest  civil  tribunals  within  the  range  of  civilization  "  (p.  172). 

Now,  these  letters  of  Le  Maistre,  with  all  their  impious  and  un-American 
teachings,  were  translated  into  English  by  a  Roman  Catholic  priest  of  Salem, 
Massachusetts,  and  published  also  by  Patrick  Donahoe,  "  Catholic  book- 
seller,"  of  Boston,  in  1843.  In  the  preface  of  this  translator,  he  says  a  great 
many  silly  and  mendacious  things  about  the  "piratical,  pharisaical  reforma- 
tion," about  the  "base  apostate  Luther,"  and  the  "libertinism  "  of  Protest- 
antism (pp.  9,  10) ;  but,  like  all  other  writers  of  his  class,  he,  too,  reaches 
the  only  logical  result  which  can  follow  such  opinions  as  he  expresses.  For 
example,  he  says,  in  a  "Catholic  country,  a  man  may  entertain  whatever 
religious  or  irreligious  opinions  he  likes,"  ''''but  he  must  keep  them  to  him- 
self," for  if  he  speaks  out  what  he  thinks,  "he  is  brought  'before  the  tribu- 
nal "  of  the  Inquisition ! — Ibid.,  preface,  p.  xvi. 


84  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

Here  the  design  in  republishing  this  book  in  the  United 
States  is  made  evident;  that  it  shall,  incendiary -like,  make 
its  way  over  the  land,  by  being  brought  within  the  reach 
and  means  of  all  the  papal  followers  who  can  read  it,  so  that 
they  may  be  inoculated,  insensibly,  with  the  views  and  opin- 
ions of  their  ecclesiastical  superiors,  and  be  thereby  fitted  for 
whatsoever  work  they  shall  be  called  upon  to  do.  There 
are  very  few  Protestants  who  observe  these  cautious  and 
stealthy  approaches  of  their  vigilant  and  sleepless  adversa- 
ry. Many  of  them,  engaged  in  pursuits  which  invite  them 
into  other  fields  of  inquiry,  and  always  tolerant  and  unsus- 
pecting, are  unwilling  to  rest  long  enough  from  their  active 
occupations  to  j)ay  any  attention  whatever  to  these  things ; 
and  very  few,  if  they  think  of  them  at  all,  ever  think  of 
looking  into  Roman  Catholic  books  or  newspapers  to  see 
what  they  contain.  And  the  papal  hierarchy,  fully  inform- 
ed of  all  this,  and  well  knowing  the  advantage  they  derive 
from  it,  employ  all  their  intellectual  energies,  and  the  most 
active  and  untiring  industry,  in  prosecuting  their  attack 
upon  the  religion  professed  by  Protestants,  and  upon  all  the 
liberalizing  tendencies  of  the  civil  institutions  which  have 
grown  out  of  Protestantism.  In  their  numerous  publica- 
tions they  display  great  learning  and  ingenuity;  but  there 
are  very  few  of  these  publications  characterized  by  that 
charity  which  the  apostle  Paul  has  placed  among  the  high- 
est virtues,  and  which  Christ,  by  his  life  and  teachings,  in- 
culcated as  one  of  the  chief  and  most  necessary  duties  of 
man. 

Hence  Mgr.  Segur  goes  on  to  say,  in  the  imagined  su- 
premacy and  superiority  of  the  hierarchy  to  which  he  be- 
longs, and  by  whose  inordinate  ambition  he  is  stimulated : 

"It  would  be  an  i7isuU  to  the  Catholic  clergy  to  compare 
with  them  the  pastors  of  Protestant  sects.  As  Protestant- 
ism is  no  religion^  whatever  they  may  say  to  the  contrary, 
so  its  ministers  have  not  the  authority  of  the  priesthood,  no 
matter  how  hard  they  may  try  to  have  its  appearance."(^^) 

This  denial  of  the  priestly  character  to  the  Protestant 
clergy   amounts,  of  itself,  to  but   little,  constituting,  as   it 


('^)  Mgr.  Segur,  part  ii.,  prop,  xvii.,  p.  134. 


FREEDOM  OF  THOUGHT  CONDEMNED.  85 

does,  one  of  the  most  ordinary  features  of  polemic  contro- 
versy. But  included  within  it  is  the  denial  of  any  religion 
to  Protestants;. and  this  accusation  of  heresy  is  designed, 
by  its  frequent  repetition  in  the  United  States,  as  the  foun- 
dation upon  which  to  build  the  papal  superstructure,  to 
bring  about  the  downfall  of  the  Protestant  system,  and  the 
erection  of  the  "  Catholic  system  "  in  its  place,  in  all  its  ex- 
clusiveness  and  power.  Yet  those  engaged  in  this  under- 
taking do  not  fail  to  see  that  Protestantism,  in  this  countrj-, 
has  a  signal  advantage  over  them  in  its  advocacy  of  the 
freedom  of  thought,  for  which  the  most  of  mankind,  in  de- 
spite of  tyranny,  have  a  natural  yearning.  And  seeing  this, 
they  are  employing  this  little  book  of  Mgr.  Segur  as  the 
agent  by  which  they  hope  to  remove  this  difficulty  out  of 
the  way,  so  as  to  secure  a  clear  field  for  the  future  triumph 
and  operations  of  the  papacy.  It  is  not  proposed  to  do  this 
by  argument,  or  by  any  appeal  to  intelligent  reason,  for  in 
such  a  field  they  would  meet  inevitable  failure ;  but  by  em- 
ploying that  dogmatism  which  allows  of  no  denial,  and  which 
has  hitherto  served  them  so  well  in  other  times  and  coun- 
tries. Mgr.  Segur  cuts  the  thread  with  a  single  swoop  of 
his  ecclesiastical  sabre ;  thus : 

'''' The  freedom  of  thinking  is  simply  nonsense.  We  are  no 
more  free  to  think  without  rule  than  we  are  to  act  without  one. 
Unless  we  prefer  to  be  disorderly  and  incur  damnation,  we  are 
bound  to  have  thoughts  of  truth  and  of  truth  alone,  just  as 
we  are  bound  to  do  what  is  right,  and  only  what  is  right." ('') 

And  at  another  place  : 

'-''Freedom  of  thought  is  the  soul  of  Protestantism;  it  is 
likewise  the  soul  of  modern  rationalistic  philosophy.  It  is 
one  of  those  impossihilities  which  only  the  levity  of  a  super- 
ficial reason  can  regard  as  admissible.  But  a  sound  mind, 
that  does  not  feed  on  empty  words,  looks  upon  this  freedom 
of  thought  only  as  simply  absurd,  and,  what  is  worse,  as 

SINFUL.'X'") 

Every  reader  accustomed  to  construe  the  simplest  lan- 
guage can  see  from  these  extracts,  at  a  single  glance,  their 

('")  Mgr.  Segur,  part  ii,,  prop,  vii.,  p.  98.  * 
{^^)  Ibid.,  part  ii.,  prop,  vii.,  p.  100. 


86  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

full  import.  Therefore,  without  stopping  here  to  comment 
upon  them,  it  is  sufficient  only  to  say  that,  besides  assailing 
Protestant  Christianity,  they  are  an  open  and  undisguised 
attack  upon  the  chief  corner-stone  of  our  political  institu- 
tions. These  not  merely  secure  to  every  citizen  the  right  of 
free  thought,  but  recognize  it  as  inalienable.  If  this  great 
principle  had  not  been  maintained,  our  institutions  could  not 
have  existed,  and  the  theory  of  self-government  would  have 
been  a  disastrous  failure.  But,  by  these  papal  teachings, 
and  in  direct  opposition  to  this  principle,  the  Roman  Cath- 
olic citizens  of  the  United  States  are  commanded  to  regard 
it  as  '''' ahsurcV  and  ''''sinful^''  and,  therefore,  in  violation  of 
God's  law!  —  as  an  odious  and  intolerable  form  of  heresy, 
which  is  offensive  to  the  papacy !  They  are  thus  instructed 
that  they  may  be  prepared  to  perform  the  religious  duty  of 
uprooting  and  eradicating  all  the  Constitutional  guarantees 
designed  for  the  protection  of  this  principle,  because  "free- 
dom of  thought  is  the  soul  of  Protestantism,"  and  Protest- 
antism has  an  open  Bible  "in  which  infidelity  and  revolution 
wrap  themselves !"  There  should,  after  this,  be  no  further 
denial  of  the  fact  that  the  papacy  does  assert  for  itself,  and 
that  its  devotees  maintain  for  it,  the  divine  power  to  teach 
political  as  well  as  religious  truth.  We  shall  see  hereafter 
many  evidences  of  this,  of  the  most  convincing  character; 
but  this  author  does  not  leave  us  any  room  for  doubt  upon 
the  subject,  understanding  perfectly  well,  as  he  does,  that 
its  ultimate  ends  can  be  reached  in  no  other  way.  After  as- 
serting that  "  such  freedom  "  as  Protestantism  confers  will 
lead  "^0  perdition^''  unless  "controlled  by  the  divine  teach- 
ings of  Christ,  and  of  his  Church" — that  is,  of  the  pope, 
through  his  bishops  and  clergy — he  continues  thus : 

"  The  authority  of  the  Church  is  a  guard  over  human  un- 
derstandirig  in  whatever  directly  or  indirectly  affects  religion^ 
which  means  in  every  kind  of  doctrines — religious^  philosoph- 
ical^ scientific^  political,  etc."(") 

No  apology  is  offered  for  these  numerous  extracts  from 
this  book  of  Mgr.  Segur,  since  it  is  supposed  that  the  opin- 
ions of  the  author  can  be  better  made  known  by  means  of 

(")  Mgr.  Segur,  part  ii.,  prop,  vii.,  p.  100. 


PAPAL  TRACTS.  87 

them  than  by  briefer  quotations,  and  because,  in  order  to 
convey  a  proper  idea  of  what  constitutes  Roman  Catholic 
literature  in  the  United  States,  equally  liberal  quotations 
must  be  made  from  other  papal  authors.  This  book  is  intro- 
duced here  on  account  of  the  great  exertions  made  to  secure 
it  a  large  circulation,  and  of  the  most  significant  fact  that  it 
is  considered  worthy  of  the  special  indorsement  of  the  Bish- 
op of  Boston,  which  gives  to  it  the  sanction  of  official  author- 
ity. But  it  is  by  no  means  sent  out  alone.  A  crusade  re- 
quires a  large  army,  composed  of  many  and  disciplined  sol- 
diers, and  supplied  with  the  necessary  weapons  of  warfare. 
The  press  is  an  ever-active  engine  of  power;  and  being  free, 
in  this  country,  without  regard  to  what  it  teaches,  that  part 
of  it  which  moves  or  halts  at  the  bidding  of  ecclesiastical  au- 
thority continues  its  ceaseless  efforts,  by  day  and  night,  to 
erect  upon  the  ruins  of  Protestantism  the  imperial  throne  of 
papal  power  and  absolutism,  by  keeping  up  the  supply  of 
these  necessary  weapons.  There  is  in  the  city  of  New  York 
a  publication  society  which  sends  out  thousands,  and  per- 
haps millions,  of  little  tracts^  of  only  a  few  pages,  all  devoted 
to  the  same  object — the  defense  of  the  papacy — and  stamped 
with  this  badge  of  authority :  "  Printed  for  IVie  Catholic 
Publication  Society  —  office,  9  Warren  Street,  New  York. 
Price,  50  cents  per  hundred ;  and  sold  at  all  Catholic  book- 
sellers' at  the  same  price." 

A  package  of  these  tracts,  easily  procured,  was  found  to 
contain  one  numbered  /br^y-s/x,  on  the  subject  of  "  27*^ 
Pope's  Temporal  Power  f  defining  what  it  is,  and  what  the 
faithful  are  required  to  believe  in  reference  to  it.  It  goes 
out  in  this  modest  and  unobtrusive  way  that  it  may  perform 
its  allotted  task  silently  and  unseen,  unless  accidentally,  by 
a  single  Protestant  eye.  Explaining  what  this  power  has 
hitherto  been  at  Rome,  it  says  that  all  the  members  of  the 
Church  are  "  hound  to  believe  that  the  Holy  Father  should 
enjoy  that  political  independeyice  which  is  necessary  for  the 
free  exercise  of  his  spiritual  authority  throughout  the  entire 
world ;^''  conveying  thereby  the  idea  that,  as  "political  in- 
dependence" is  necessary  to  "the  free  exercise"  of  the 
pope's  authority  at  Rome,  it  is,  therefore  equally  necessa- 
ry, wherever,  "  throughout  the  entire  world,"  that  authority 


88  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

shall  be  recognized;  in  other  words,  that  the  degree  of  this 
independence  must  be  the  same  everywhere ;  and  as  the  pope 
can  not  maintain  his  full  authority  at  Rome  without  it,  so  he 
can  not  in  the  United  States.  It  then  proceeds,  in  the  form 
of  questions  and  answers,  to  present  the  matter  practically, 
as  follows: 

"  How  can  this  independence  be  secured  ? 

"  Only  in  one  way.  The  pope  must  be  a  sovereign  himself. 
iVb  temporal  prince^  whether  emperor^  or  hing^  or  president^  or 
ANY  LEGISLATIVE  BODY,  caii  have  any  lawful  jurisdiction  over 
the  pope. 

"  What  right  has  the  pope  to  be  independent  of  every  civil 
ruler  f 

"  He  has  it  in  virtue  of  his  dignity  as  the  vicar  of  Christ. 
Christ  himself  is  "  King  of  kings."  But  the  pope  governs 
the  Church  in  the  name  of  Christ,  and  as  his  representative. 
His  divine  office,  therefore,  makes  him  superior  to  eveky 

POLITICAL,  TEMPORAL,  AND  HUMAN  GOVERNMENT. 

"  But  could  not  the  pope  exercise  his  spiritual  supremacy, 
and  yet  be  the  subject  of  some  temporal  prince;  for  instance, 
the  King  of  Italy  ? 

"  Most  certainly  not.  For,  as  the  representative  of  God, 
the  pope  is  compelled  to  denounce  whatever  injustice  and  in- 
iquity he  finds  in  the  world,  including  the  acts  of  grasping 
and  unjust  civil  governments.'*'* 

Let  the  reader  observe  how  carefully  this  language  is  ar- 
ranged so  as  to  convey  this  obvious  meaning— nothing  more, 
nothing  less— that,  as  the  pope's  "  spiritual  authority  "  can 
not  be  exercised  in  the  papal  states  without  ''political  in- 
dependence,'' and  as  he  must  be  "  superior  to  every  political, 
temporal,  and  human  government,''  so  that  he  may  "  denounce 
whatever  injustice  and  iniquity  he  finds  in  the  world,"  ac- 
cordingly as  he  shall  consider  it  unjust  and  iniquitous,  there- 
fore he  must  have  the  same  degree  of "  political  independ- 
ence" in  the  United  States  that  he  has  at  Rome,  so  that  his 
commands  shall  be  as  much  the  law  here  as  there  ;  and  that, 
as  he  has  already  denounced  Protestantism  as  heresy,  in- 
fidelity, and  no  religion  —  as  "injustice  and  iniquity,"  he 
should  have  full  authority  to  command  that  its  institutions, 
both  civil  and  religious,  when  not  approved  by  him,  shall  be 


NO  APPEAL  FROM  THE  POPE.  89 

plucked  up  by  the  roots,  and  all  the  power  necessary  to  en- 
force obedience  to  such  a  decree ! 

If  any  doubt  should  be  eptertained  on  this  subject,  it  will 
be  removed  by  the  perusal  of  another  of  the  tracts  contained 
in  this  same  package,  and  numbered  forty-three^  upon  "  the 
duty  of  obeying  the  pope!'''  Here  "the  duty  of  all  Catholics 
to  obey  the  pope"  is  laid  down  as  the  starting-point.  All 
his  '■Haws''''  are  represented  as  "confirmed  by  a  divine  sanc- 
tion, and  are  obligatory  upon  the  conscience  in  the  same  man- 
gier as  the  laws  of  Moses  were  binding  on  the  Jews!''  He  is 
called  the  "  sovereign  judge  and  lawgiver^  from  whose  decis- 
ions and  judgments  there  is  no  appeaV  Being  "  the  head 
of  the  whole  Church,  and  the  father  and  teacher  of  all  Chris- 
tians," he  requires,  therefore,  obedience  to  his  doctrinal  decis- 
ions and  to  his  laws ;  in  certain  cases,  under  the  penalty  of 
excommunication.  All  this  having  been  announced,  this  little 
tract  proceeds  to  define  this  extraordinary  authority,  thus : 

"  The  authority  of  the  pope  to  teach  and  command  the 
faithful  in  regard  to  all  things  relating  to  the  doctrines 
which  they  are  to  hold  or  reject,  and  in  regard  to  all  things 
relating  to  religious  and  moral  acts  which  they  are  to  do  or 
avoids  has  been  given  him  by  Jesus  Christ." 

Thereupon,  the  faithful  are  instructed  that  the  popes,  ex- 
ercising the  divine  "  powder  of  the  keys,"  have  "  forbidden 
certain  opinions  to  be  maintained,  and  certain  acts  to  be 
done ;"  and  that  these  commands  are  "  ratified  in  heaven, 
and  are  therefore  to  be  respected  and  obeyed  as  really  ema- 
nating from  Jesus  Christ  himself  P''  Then,  passing  from  this 
blasphemous  comparison  of  the  pope  with  Christ,  it  con- 
demns Freemasonry  as  already  under  the  curse  of  several 
popes  before  the  present  one ;  denies  the  right  of  "  a  private 
person  to  judge  the  rulers  of  the  Ghurch^^  thus  asserting  full 
official  impunity  for  every  member  of  the  hierarchy;  endeav- 
ors, with  an  exceedingly  thin  veil  of  sophistry,  to  evade  the 
charge  of  ecclesiastical  interference  with  political  opinions ; 
and  defines,  with  the  utmost  precision,  the  comprehensive- 
ness of  the  papal  authority.  It  would  be  hard  to  find  more 
explicit  language.     It  says: 

"  The  authority  of  the  Church  extends  over  all  things  re- 
lating to  morality^  over  all  questions  of  right  and  wrong^ 


90  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

duty  ayid  transgression  of  duty  ^justice  and  injustice  ^lawful- 
ness and  unlawfulness.  As  well  might  one  talk  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  iuteifering  with  human  rights  as  his  vicar  or 
his  Church.  Man  is  responsible  to  God  in  all  his  relations, 
as  a  child  or  parent,  a  subject,  citizen,  artisan,  merchant,  law- 
yer, legislator,  or  governor.  The  moral  law,  the  rule  of  right 
and  wrong,  runs  through  the  state^  society,  the  family,  and 
every  relation  or  institution  in  which  man  is  a  free  agent, 
having  rights  and  duties.  The  Church  is  supreme  in  decid- 
ing all  moral  questions^  and  the  pope  is  the  sovereign  minis- 
ter of  God,  with  p>ower  to  punish  by  his  spiritual  censures 
all  infractions  of  the  divine  lawP 

When  it  shall  become  necessary,  further  along,  to  examine 
the  doctrines  of  the  Encyclical  and  Syllabus  of  Pope  Pius 
IX.,  and  other  instructions  to  his  subjects,  this  extract  will 
furnish  a  key  to  his  meaning.  In  the  mean  time,  it  should 
be  observed  how  distinctly  and  emphatically  it  is  an- 
nounced, in  this  American  tract,  that  the  authority  and 
jurisdiction  of  the  Church,  and  of  the  pope  as  its  supreme 
head,  and  of  the  clergy,  as  the  instruments  he  employs  in 
the  execution  of  his  power,  is  so  full,  comj)rehensive,  and 
all-absorbing,  as  to  embrace  the  entire  man,  in  all  his  re- 
lations of  life,  in  all  the  duties  he  owes  to  himself,  to  his 
family,  to  society,  to  the  state  of  which  he  is  a  citizen,  and 
to  the  government  to  which  he  owes  allegiance.  Every 
thought,  word,  and  act ;  every  impulse  and  passion  of  the 
mind  ;  all  the  affections  and  hatreds  of  the  heart — must  be 
subordinated  to  the  will  of  the  pope,  who,  as  sovereign  lord 
of  the  universe— as  "  God  on  earth  " — must  acquire  a  do- 
minion so  complete  that  every  society,  community,  and  gov- 
ernment in  the  world  shall  be  constructed,  regulated,  and 
managed  according  to  the  law  of  God  as  he  shall  declare 
and  announce  it !  If  Protestantism  is  infidelity  and  here- 
sy, it  must  be  exterminated  !  If  free  thought  is  "  sinful^'' 
it  must  be  suppressed  !  If  a  free  press  opens  the  door  to 
revolution  or  licentiousness,  it  must  be  destroyed  !  If  free 
speech  is  offensive  to  pontifical  or  hierarchical  ears,  there 
must  be  no  more  of  it !  If  a  republican  and  popular  govern- 
ment secures  all  these  privileges  and  provides  for  their  con- 
tinuance, it  must  be  overthrown  !     If  the  Constitution  of  the 


PROHIBITION  OF  BOOKS.  91 

United  States  prohibits  "  an  establishment  of  religion,"  or 
any  impairment  of  the  right  of  its  "  free  exercise,"  it  must 
be  put  out  of  the  way,  and  papal  imperialism  take  the  place 
of  the  will  of  the  people  which  it  expresses  !  If  any  man, 
supposing  himself  to  be  free,  shall  dare  to  consult  his  own 
conscience  in  matters  of  religious  belief  or  moral  duty,  or  to 
interpret  the  Bible  for  himself,  he  must  be  stricken  down  by 
the  sword  of  pontifical  wrath,  and  the  papal  anathema  rest 
upon  his  name  forever  !  And  then,  when  all  this  is  accom- 
plished ;  when  mankind  shall  be  compelled  to  recognize 
true  religion  as  consisting  only  in  passive  obedience  to  the 
"/a?cs"  of  the  ''■King  of  Borne ^''  the  pope,  and  his  bishops, 
and  his  priests  all  stand  ready  to  plunge  the  world  once 
more  into  medisBval  bondage  !  When  Rome  was  "  mistress 
of  the  world,"  none  of  her  despots  wore  a  diadem  so  imperi- 
al as  this. 

This  is  not  the  place  for  a  philosophical  disquisition  upon 
the  varied  qualities  of  the  mind,  or  its  tendency  to  be  im- 
pressed by  surrounding  circumstances.  We  all  know  that 
it  may  be  educated  to  adopt  almost  any  class  of  opinions, 
especially  when  its  higher  capacities  are  left  unimproved. 
The  papacy,  well  understanding  this,  has  been  always  ac- 
customed to  determine  and  regulate  the  kind  of  instruction 
to  be  given  to  the  members  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church, 
prescribing  the  particular  books  they  shall  read,  and  prohib- 
iting the  reading  of  others,  under  penalty  of  the  pontifical 
curse.  There  is  at  Rome,  as  an  essential  department  of 
the  papal  court,  what  is  called  the  "  Congregation  of  the  In- 
dex." To  this  tribunal  are  submitted  all  publications  that 
are,  in  any  degree,  under  the  suspicion  of  heresy ;  and  if, 
upon  examination,  they  are  found  to  teach  what  the  pope 
does  not  desire  to  be  taught,  they  are  condemned  and  placed 
upon  the  '''Index  expurgatorius  f''  so  that  thereafter  it  shall 
be  regarded  as  an  oiFense  against  the  Church  and  against 
God  for  any  person  to  read  them.  Examples  of  this  are 
abundant ;  that  in  reference  to  the  books  of  Galileo  being  a 
prominent  one.  Galileo  taught  the  Copernican  theory  of 
the  revolution  of  the  earth  upon  its  axis ;  and  as  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  taught  the  contrary — that  is?,  that  the  earth 
was  stationary,  and  the  sun  revolved  around  it — Pope  Paul 


92  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

V.  caused  his  writings  to  be  condemned,  and  prohibited  the 
reading  of  them ;  and  Pope  Urban  YIII.  not  only  repeated 
this  prohibition,  but  caused  the  great  astronomer  to  be  tried, 
convicted,  and  imprisoned  during  life  for  having  dared  to 
teach  such  heresy !(")  There  are  very  few  popes  who  have 
not  added  to  the  number  of  books  upon  the  "  Index."  The 
present  pope  has  adopted  a  more  comprehensive  method — 
while  still  adhering  to  that  of  his  predecessors  —  by  fre- 
quent and  general  denunciation  of  all  of  that  class  of  books 
which  advocate  liberalism.  Protestantism,  republicanism,  free 
thought,  free  speech,  and  a  free  press.  Therefore,  while 
such  works  as  are  called  forth  by  the  progressive  and  ad- 
vancing spirit  of  the  present  age  are  condemned  as  impious 
and  heretical,  because  their  tendency  is  to  weaken  and  de- 
stroy the  ^''divine  righV  of  kings  to  govern  mankind,  and  are 
kept  out  of  the  hands  of  the  faithful,  wherever  it  can,  by 
possibility,  be  done,  the  hierarchy  actively  employ  their 
learning  and  ingenuity  in  preparing  and  circulating  such 
books,  magazines,  newspapers,  pamphlets,  and  tracts  as 
those  from  which  the  foregoing  extracts  are  taken,  and  in 
the  inculcation  of  the  sentiments  they  contain.  They  calcu- 
late largely  upon  the  indifference  of  the  great  body  of  the 
people  of  the  United  States  to  such  subjects;  well  under- 
standing, at  the  same  time,  that  Avhatever  they  shall  thus 
circulate  in  support  of  papal  omnipotence  will  be  impressed 

('^)  Much  ingenuity  has  been  recently  displayed  by  papal  writers  in  the  at- 
tempt to  show  that  Galileo  was  not  condemned  by  the  Church  for  teaching 
the  doctrine  of  Copernicus,  that  the  sun  is  the  centre  of  the  universe,  and 
does  not  move,  but  that  the  earth  moves  with  a  diurnal  motion.  To  do  this 
it  has  been  found  necessary  to  pervert  many  important  facts  of  history,  and 
to  deny  others  which  have  been  accepted  as  true  by  the  most  learned  Prot- 
estant and  Roman  Catholic  historians  for  nearly  two  hundred  and  fifty  years. 
Those  who  have  the  curiosity  to  examine  this  question  will  find  it  fully  dis- 
cussed in  a  late  work,  entitled  "The  Private  Life  of  Galileo  ;  compiled  prin- 
cipally from  his  correspondence  and  that  of  his  eldest  daughter.  Sister  Maria 
Celeste,  nun  in  the  Franciscan  convent  of  St.  Matthew,  in  Arcetri ;"  publish- 
ed by  Nichols  &  Noyes,  Boston.  All  "  the  pontifical  decrees  against  the  mo- 
tion of  the  earth  "  have  also  been  published  in  London,  From  these  it  is 
shown  to  be  true,  that  the  Copemican  theory  was  condemned  both  by  the 
pope  and  the  sacred  Congregation  of  the  Index,  "as  absurd  and  false  in 
philosophy,"  and  as  '■'  erroneous  in  faith." 


DEFENSE  OF  THE  INQUISITION.  93 

upon  'the  minds  of  their  superstitious  followers — especially 
the  ignorant  portion  of  them — by  the  numerous  foreign  and 
Jesuit  priests  who  are  scattered  over  the  country.  These 
priests  are  specially  prepared  for  this  purpose  by  previous 
training  at  Rome  and  elsewhere,  and  are  quite  ready,  at  all 
times,  to  lay  these  doctrines  before  their  congregations,  and 
to  instruct  them  that  unless  they  believe  and  practice  them 
they  will  assuredly  fall  under  the  anathemas  of  the  Church. 
As  between  the  institutions  of  the  United  States  and  the 
papal  institutions  that  existed  at  Rome  before  the  tempo- 
ral power  of  the  pope  was  taken  away  by  the  Italian  people, 
these  priests  prefer  the  latter ;  insisting  that  they  are  found- 
ed upon  the  law  of  God,  while  the  former  are  heretical. 
Therefore,  they  work  hard  to  bring  about  the  time  when  the 
pope  shall  ^^  command  ^^  the  people  of  the  United  States — 
they  acting  as  his  captains  and  lieutenants ! 

It  has  already  been  shown  how  readily  Dr.  Brownson  en- 
tered into  this  scheme  to  enslave  his  native  country,  by  de- 
voting his  talents  to  the  service  of  this  foreign  priesthood. 
Ever  on  the  alert  to  employ  his  fertile  brain  in  this  inglori- 
ous work,  he  has  lately  published  another  book,  which  was 
considered  of  so  much  importance  by  the  hierarchy,  that  it 
appeared  simultaneously  in  New  York,  Boston,  and  Montreal. 
In  this  book,  entitled  "  Conversations  on  Liberalism  and  the 
Church,"  he  falsely  represents  himself  as  an  American  Prot- 
estant who  carries  on  a  conversation  with  a  Roman  Catholic 
priest,  and  allows  himself  to  be  converted  by  him  to  Roman- 
ism !  He  calls  it  "  purely  imaginary,"  but  this  scarcely  re- 
lieves him  from  the  charge  of  disingenuously  impersonating 
a  Protestant,  and  putting  only  such  arguments  into  his 
mouth  as  he  supposes  necessary  to  secure  an  unfair  advan- 
tage to  his  own  Church  and  to  the  papacy. 

He  defends  and  justifies  the  Spanish  Inquisition  as  an  in- 
stitution necessary  "  to  ferret  out  and  bring  to  trial "  those 
who  engage  in  "secret  conspiracies "  against  " the  Church 
and  the  State."(")  He  advocates  a  union  between  Church 
and  State.  (")     He  calls  liberty  a  "  spiritual  right,"  not  a  nat- 

(")  Brownson's  "Liberalism  and  the  Church,"  chap,  viii.,  p.  105. 
O  Ihid.,  p.  110. 


94  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

ural  right,  or  a  "civil  grant;"  and  insists,  therefore,  that  it 
can  have  no  proper  foundation  except  "o/z  the  supremacy 
of  the  spiritual  order ^  which  the  Church  has  always  asserted 
and  defended. "(")  Then,  after  expressing  his  regret  that, 
in  this  country,  the  "  sovereignty  of  the  people  "  has  been  re- 
solved into  the  "  sovereignty  of  popular  opinion,"  he  makes 
his  priest  address  the  American  Protestant  thus: 

"You  are  losing  the  sense  of  the  great  principles  on 
which  your  fathers  built,  and  no  longer  see  or  understand 
the  deep  significance  of  the  providential  Constitution  of  your 
republic.  You  are  perverting  the  Christian  to  the  pagan  re- 
public. Hence  your  great  need  of  the  Church  to  recall  your 
minds  to  the  first  principles  of  your  institutions,  and  to  en- 
able you  to  inherit  the  glory  of  being  the  first  nation  that 
ever  fully  asserted  spiritual  freed om."^^^) 

This  sounds  well  enough,  in  so  far  as  it  pretends  to  speak 
favorably  of  our  institutions;  but  the  language  of  compli- 
ment is  employed  merely  to  disguise  the  real  object.  The 
whole  context  of  the  book  shows  that  it  was  written  un- 
der the  influence  of  a  single  controlling  idea ;  that  is,  that 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  as  represented  by  the  papacy, 
should  obtain  supremacy  over  the  people  of  the  United 
States,  in  order  that  they  may  be  held  to  the  line  of  duty  to 
God  and  the  world,  as  the  pope  shall  understand  and  declare 
it.  This  idea  is  not  altogether  concealed  in  the  above  ex- 
tract, but  it  is  more  distinctly  expressed  elsewhere.  It  is 
not  a  little  surprising  that,  with  his  mind  thus  impressed,  it 
did  not  occur  to  him  to  inquire,  how  it  has  happened  that 
the  papacy  did  not  establish  the  freedom  of  which  he  writes, 
when  it  had  the  world  at  its  feet? — and  why  civil  freedom 
was  not  fully  established,  until  it  grew  up,  without  the  aid 
and  against  the  protestations  of  the  papacy,  as  one  of  the 
legitimate  and  necessary  fruits  of  the  Protestant  Reforma- 
tion? But  it  must  be  conceded  to  him  that  his  ideas  of 
"spiritual  freedom"  are  very  diffierent  from  those  which  pre- 
vail among  the  Protestants  of  the  United  States.  What  he 
means  by  it — as  we  shall  presently  see — is  the  freedom  of 
the  Church — that  is,  of  the  pope — to  govern  the  world,  to 

(")  Brownson's  "Liberalism  and  the  Church, "pp.  115,  116.        (")  Ibid. 


DESIRE  TO  RETURN  TO  THE  MIDDLE  AGES.  95 

dictate  the  law  of  God  to  all  nations  and  peoples,  and  to 
punish  disobedience  to  her  edicts.  For  example:  he  says 
that  the  "  dogmas  of  the  Church  are,  if  any  thing,  above  rea- 
son;'i^')  and^  being  "matters  within  the  spiritual  order,"  in- 
dividuals have  "  nothing  to  do  "  with  them.(")  He  gives  the 
reason  elsewhere,  by  insisting  that  the  word  of  the  Church 
"  is  as  high  authority  for  what  God  has  revealed  as  is  the 
Bible  itself  f'i^')  and,  therefore,  that  "human  laws  derive  all 
their  vigor  as  laws  from  the  law  of  God,"  as  proclaimed  by 
the  Church,  or  by  the  pope  as  its  lawful  and  divine  head. 
Under  the  dominion  of  such  sentiments  as  these,  he  under- 
takes to  show  wherein  consists  the  necessity  of  subverting 
our  Protestant  institutions,  and  substituting  for  theni  such 
as  the  Church,  or  the  pope,  shall  consider  consistent  with  the 
law  of  God.  As  they  do  not  tend  to  elevate  and  advance 
mankind,  and  are,  in  these  respects,  greatly  behind  the  Ro- 
man Catholic  nations,  the  latter  are,  in  his  opinion,  entitled 
to  a  decided  preference  !     He  says: 

"Christian  nations  alone  are  living  and  progressive  na- 
tions. And  never  have  Christian  nations  advanced  in  all 
that  makes  the  true  glory  of  civilization  so  rapidly  as  they 
did  from  the  downfall  of  Rome  to  the  rise  of  lohat  you  call 
the  Reformation."" i^") 

Pursuing  this  train  of  thought,  he  insists  that,  with  the 
exception  of  the  "  discovery  by  Catholics  of  this  Western 
hemisphere,"  and  the  practical  adoption  of  some  papal  prin- 
ciples, there  has  been  "yio  real  progress  of  civilization  since 
the  epoch  of  the  Reformation."" {^')  Such  sentiments  would, 
of  course,  lead  him  to  give  the  preference  to  Roman  Catholic 
governments  over  those  arising  out  of  Protestant  liberali- 
ty and  toleration,  and  to  see,  in  the  Roman  Catholic  popula- 
tions, a  hisrher  desjree  of  elevation  and  advancement  than  is 
to  be  found  among  those  of  Protestant  nations.  And  to  in- 
dicate this  preference,  he  applauds  the  "  moral  elevation  and 
personal  dignity  of  the  Catholic  peasantry,"  which  he  con- 
siders due  to  the  fact  that  their  relisrion  "  attaches  merit  to 


('^)  Brownson's  "Liberalism  and  the  Church,"  p.  128. 

n  Ibid.,  p.  131.  O  Ihid.,  p.  163. 

O  Ibid.,  p.  170.  O  Ibid.,  p.  176. 


96  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

voluntary  poverty,"  and  "  regards  the  poor  as  blessed  and  a 
blessinoj  t"  With  this  estimate  of  the  sweets  and  blessinfrs 
of  poverty,  he  denounced  the  poor-houses  which  Protestant- 
ism has  caused  to  be  erected,  wherever  it  prevails,  as  "  mod- 
ern^ BastiUs^"^  insisting  that  the  poor  had  better  be  left  in 
their  happy  condition  of  poverty  than  be  "  shut  up  as  crim- 
inals."    He  then  suras  up  his  conclusions  thus : 

"  You  will  look  in  vain  among  your  noii-  Catholic  contem- 
poraries for  that  clearness  and  vigor  of  intellect,  and  that 
moral  elevation,  force,  and  mdependence  of  individual  char- 
acter^ which  you  meet  everywhere  in  medioeval  society.  If 
there  were  great  crimes  in  those  ages,  they  were  followed, 
as  the  historian  of  the  monks  of  the  West  justly  remarks,  by 
great  expiations.  If  there  was  great  pride,  there  was  deeper 
humility,  and  always  will  the  period  from  the  sixth  to  the  end 
of  the  fifteenth  century  stand  out  as  the  most  glorious  in  the 
annals  of  the  race.''\^^) 

How  wonderfully  perverted  must  be  the  best  faculties  of 
an  American  mind,  when  it  is  brought  to  see  in  the  condi- 
tion of  the  world  during  the  Middle  Ages,  from  the  sixth  to 
the  sixteenth  century,  that  which  is  preferable  to  the  present 
state  of  affairs  among  the  Protestant  nations,  especially  in 
the  United  States !  Such  an  effect  could  only  be  produced 
by  the  unexampled  influence  which  the  papacy  has  been  able 
to  exercise  over  some  of  the  brightest  intellects  of  the  world — 
a  strange  and  mysterious  influence,  which  has  brought  them 
in  subjection  to  its  ambition,  and  appropriated  all  their  best 
energies  to  itself.  But  we  are  concerned  now  only  with  the 
existence  of  such  a  fact,  rather  than  with  an  inquiry  into  the 
causes  of  it.  Dr.  Brownson  is  a  distinguished  instance  of 
this  perverted  intellect.  His  service  of  the  papacy,  and  his 
quick  defense  of  all  its  extravagant  claims,  have  acquired  for 
him  a  reputation  among  the  papal  hierarchy,  which  may  flat- 
ter but  can  not  console  him.  When  he  recurs  to  the  princi- 
ples and  influences  under  which  his  mind  was  developed  into 
its  brilliant  maturity,  and  by  means  of  which  it  acquired  its 
freedom,  the  remembrance  must  be  to  him  like  the  yearning 
after  a  lost  treasure.     But  whether  he  derives  regret  or  re- 

(")  Brownson's  "Liberalism  and  the  Church,"  pp.  181, 182. 


SUBMISSION  TO  THE  PRIESTHOOD.  97 

joicing  from  his  present  position,  he  must  be  regarded  as  ex- 
pressing, not  merely  his  own,  but  the  sentiments  and  opin- 
ions of  the  hierarchy  of  the  United  States,  when  he  gives 
the  preference  to  the  condition  of  Europe  during  the  Middle 
Ages — when  ignorance,  superstition,  and  degradation  were 
almost  universal  among  the  populations — over  that  in  which 
the  people  of  this  country  now  are.  Blind  and  passive  sub- 
mission to  the  priesthood  then  prevailed  throughout  all  the 
ranks  of  society;  therefore,  the  people  were  abundantly  hap- 
py !  They  were  so  ignorant  as  not  to  know  that  they  were 
in  bondage ;  therefore,  they  were  models  of  contentment ! 
The  masses  were  in  the  lowest  poverty,  while  the  nobility 
reveled  in  wealth  and  luxury;  therefore,  they  were  in  a 
state  of  blissful  humility !  They  left  the  popes  and  their 
myriads  of  priestly  dependents  to  do  as  they  pleased,  and  to 
bid  defiance  to  all  human  laws ;  therefore,  they  had  reached 
the  point  of  the  highest "  moral  elevation !"  Who  can  account 
for  such  strange  hallucination  of  thought  as  this?  How  is 
it  possible  for  a  man  to  persuade  himself,  or  be  persuaded 
by  others,  to  believe  that  this  country  would  be  improved, 
and  the  people  carried  to  higher  moral  and  political  eleva- 
tion, if  the  existing  condition  of  our  affairs  were  destroyed, 
and  that  which  existed  in  the  Middle  Ages  substituted? 
Certainly,  no  such  thought  can  dwell  long  in  the  minds  of 
any  but  those  whose  blind  devotion  shuts  out  the  light  from 
their  reason.  And  yet,  to  bring  about  precisely  that  result, 
all  the  energies  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  in  so  far  as 
the  papacy  can  direct  them,  are  now  assiduously  and  untir- 
ingly directed.  Possibly,  those  who  are  aiding  in  this  work 
in  the  United  States  are  merely  laboring  under  honest  de- 
lusion, in  the  conviction  that  it  may  be  done  by  peaceful 
means,  or  that  the  people  can  be  persuaded  to  give  up  to 
foreign  dictation  those  national  blessings  which  have  always 
constituted  their  highest  pride.  But  this  they  must  and  do 
know — that  what  they  labor  for  with  so  much  diligence  can 
only  be  accomplished  by  overthrowing  our  Protestant  insti- 
tutions, destroying  our  Protestant  Christianity,  and  upheav- 
ing, from  its  foundation,  our  Protestant  form  of  government. 

7 


98  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

Papal  Hopes  of  Success  in  the  United  States. — The  Jesuits. — Their  Charac- 
ter.— Their  Expulsion  by  Roman  Catholic  Governments. — Their  Suppres- 
sion by  Clement  XIV. — Causes  of  it. — His  Bull. — Expelled  from  Russia. 
— Causes  of  it. — Their  Restoration  by  Pius  VII. — Their  Support  of  Mon- 
archy.— The  Order  not  Religious. — Its  Constitution. — Its  Authors. — They 
Denounce  Protestantism  as  Infidelity. — They  Threaten  the  Inquisition. — 
Movements  during  the  Rebellion. — Napoleon  III.  and  Pius  IX. — Intoler- 
ance of  the  Latter. — Precedents  of  Kings  Humiliated  by  the  Popes. 

Gregory  XVL,  whose  pontificate  commenced  in  1831,  was 
the  first  pope  who  seemed  encouraged  by  the  idea  that  the 
papacy  would  ultimately  establish  itself  in  the  United  States. 
His  chief  reliance,  as  the  means  of  realizing  this  hope,  was 
upon  the  Jesuits,  upon  whose  entire  devotion  to  the  princi- 
ples of  absolutism  he  could  confidently  rely.  Prepared  at 
all  times  to  labor  for  the  suppression  of  freedom,  and  trained 
in  a  faith  which  allows  to  the  individual  no  personal  right 
of  thought  or  action,  they  were  both  ready  and  willing 
agents  in  the  work  of  assailing  our  popular  institutions. 
With  them  no  form  of  government  has  the  divine  approval 
unless  founded  upon  the  principles  of  monarchy.  They  es- 
pecially abhor  that  form  which  confers  equality  of  civil  and 
political  rights,  which  denies  the  authority  of  privileged 
classes,  and  forbids  the  establishment  of  ecclesiasticism. 

This  wonderful  society  —  the  most  wonderful  the  world 
has  ever  known  —  had  been  suppressed  in  1Y73  by  Pope 
Clement  XIV.,  after  a  tedious  and  thorough  personal  inves- 
tigation of  all  the  accusations  against  it.  By  this  act  of  con- 
demnation, which  was  made  at  the  instance  of  the  leading 
Roman  Catholic  powers,  such  a  degree  of  odium  was  stamp- 
ed upon  its  character  that  the  people  everywhere  held  it  in 
execration.  Its  despotic  principles  and  immoral  teachings 
were  alike  condemned,  except  by  those  who,  like  Gregory 
XVL,  saw  that,  in  the  compactness  of  its  organization  and 
the  unity  of  its  purpose,  it  possessed  important  elements  of 


INSTRUCTIVE  EVENTS  IN  HISTORY.  99 

strength,  which  it  was  always  willing  to  employ  in  building 
up  the  papal  structure.  There  is  no  more  instructive  chap- 
ter in  history  than  that  which  records  the  events  connected 
with  its  suppression  by  the  pope.  The  expulsion  of  the  or- 
der from  France,  Spain,  Portugal,  and  Sicily  —  all  Roman 
Catholic  governments — the  hesitation  of  Clement,  his  careful 
and  deliberate  investigation  of  the  charges  made  against  it, 
and  the  overwhelming  proofs  which  forced  him  to  conclu- 
sions he  had  manifestly  endeavored  to  avoid,  all  go  to  show 
an  amount  of  turpitude  which  is  without  parallel  elsewhere. 
The  pope  was  reluctant  to  fix  the  pontifical  censure  upon  it, 
because  it  had  received  the  sanction  of  a  number  of  his  pred- 
ecessors; but  as  an  honest  and  sincere  Christian — which  is 
not  denied,  except  by  the  Jesuits — he  felt  himself  constrain- 
ed, by  a  sense  of  duty  to  the  Church  and  the  world,  to  de- 
clare its  unworthiness.  And,  in  doing  so,  he  satisfied  the 
Roman  Catholic  governments  against  which  treason  had 
been  plotted  by  its  members,  and  restored  quiet,  for  a  time, 
to  the  Church. 

In  his  pontifical  brief,  Clement  XIV.  averred  that  the  Jes- 
uit "  maxims  "  were  "  scandalous,  and  manifestly  contrary  to 
good  morals ;"  that  the  society  had  bred  "  revolts  and  intes- 
tine troubles  in  some  of  the  Catholic  states ;"  that,  by  means 
of  its  practices,  "  complaints  and  quarrels  were  multiplied 
on  every  side ;  in  some  places  dangerous  seditions  arose,  tu- 
mults, discords,  dissensions,  scandals,  which,  weakening  or 
entirely  breaking  the  bonds  of  Christian  charity,  excited  the 
faithful  to  all  the  rage  of  party  hatreds  and  animosities ;" 
that  the  kings  most  devoted  to  the  Church — to  wit,  those  of 
France,  Spain,  Portugal,  and  Sicily — had  "  found  themselves 
reduced  to  the  necessity  of  expelling  and  driving  from  their 
states,  kingdoms,  and  provinces  these  very  Companions  of 
Jesus,"  which  they  were  compelled  to  do  as  a  step  "  necessa- 
ry in  order  to  prevent  the  Christians  from  rising  one  against 
another,  and  from  massacring  each  other  in  the  very  bosom 
of  our  common  mother,  the  Holy  Church ;"  and  that,  as  the 
Church  could  never  "recover  a  firm  and  durable  peace  so 
long  as  the  said  society  subsisted,"  he,  therefore,  was  con- 
strained to  annul  and  extinguish  it  "/bre?;6r,"' to  "abrogate 
all  the  prerogatives  which  had  been  granted  to  them  by  their 


100  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

general  and  other  superiors  in  virtue  of  the  privileges  ob- 
tained from  the  sovereign  pontiffs,"  and  to  announce  to  the 
Christian  world  that  his  pontifical  act  of  suppression  "  should 
forever  and  to  all  eternity  be  valid,  permanent,  and  eifica- 
cious,"  and  be  "  inviolably  observed  "  by  all  the  faithful  ev- 
erywhere. (^) 

The  Jesuits,  by  the  immoral  tendency  of  their  doctrines 
and  the  many  enormities  perpetrated  by  them  against  gov- 
ernments, society,  and  individuals,  had  become  so  unpopular 
throughout  Europe  that  their  suppression  gave  great  and 
almost  universal  satisfaction.  It  was  especially  approved 
by  all  sincere  Christians,  because  they  saw  that  it  removed 
from  the  Church  a  load  which  was  surely  dragging  it  down. 
And  those  who,  without  belonging  to  the  order,  had  been 
educated  by  it,  were  constrained  to  approve  the  act,  because 
it  was  done  by  an  infallible  pope,  who  could  not  err !  This 
sentiment  of  approval  became  stronger  in  proportion  as  the 
practices  and  policy  of  the  order  became  better  known.  The 
public  were  then  enabled  to  see  how  entirely  at  variance  its 
practices  were  with  its  professions.  Although  one  of  the 
articles  of  their  constitution  forbade  the  members  of  the  or- 


(V'  History  of  the  Jesuits,"  by  Nicolini,  pp.  387  to  406,  where  the  brief 
of  the  pope  is  published  at  length  ;  "  History  of  the  Jesuits,"  by  Steinmetz, 
p.  612;  "History  of  the  Popes,"  by  Cormenin,  vol.  ii.,  p.  397. 

This  celebrated  bull  of  the  pope  is  called  '''•  Dominus  ac  Redemptor"  and 
that  Clement  was  exceedingly  reluctant  to  issue  it  is  beyond  all  question.  In 
a  letter  written  by  him  in  1768,  before  he  became  pope,  and  while  he  was 
Cardinal  Ganganelli,  he  expressed  the  opinion  that  if  the  Jesuits  had  not 
been  so  "obstinate"  as  to  refuse  any  reformation,  the  differences  with  them 
"might  have  been  brought  to  a  happy  issue." — Letters  of  Pope  Clement 
XIV.  {Ganganelli).  To  which  are  affixed  anecdotes  of  his  life,  translated 
from  the  French  of  Lottin  Le  Jeune,  vol.  ii.,  p.  201.  After  he  became 
pope,  and  when  it  became  his  duty  to  investigate  the  complaints  against  the 
society,  he  wrote  to  a  Portuguese  lord,  saying:  "I  shall  do  nothing  until  I 
have  examined,  weighed,  and  judged  according  to  the  laws  of  justice  and 
truth.  May  God  forbid  that  any  human  consideration  should  influence  my 
decision!  I  have  already  a  sufficiently  severe  account  to  render  to  God, 
without  charging  my  conscience  with  the  addition  of  a  new  crime ;  and  it 
would  be  an  enormous  one  to  proscribe  a  religious  order  upon  rumors  and 
prejudices,  or  even  upon  suspicions.  I  shall  not  forget  that,  in  rendering  to 
Ca3sar  the  things  that  are  Caisar's,  I  ought  to  render  to  God  the  things  that 
are  God's."— 76id,  pp.  224,  225. 


DOINGS  OF  THE  JESUITS.  101 

der  from  the  acceptance  of  any  dignity,  and  another  recom- 
mended holy  poverty  as  the  bulwark  of  religion,  yet  there 
were  among  them  24  cardinals,  6  electors  of  the  empire, 
19  princes,  21  archbishops,  and  121  titular  bishops ;  and  their 
aggregate  wealth  amounted  to  40,000,000  pounds  sterling — 
the  enormous  sum  of  $200,000,000  !  Their  general,  Lorenzo 
Ricci,  was  arrested,  and  thrown  into  prison  in  the  castle  of 
St.  Angelo  at  Rome,  charged  with  an  attempt  to  stir  up  a 
revolt  against  the  papal  authority  —  with  plotting  treason 
against  the  Church  and  the  pope  within  the  consecrated 
walls  of  the  Vatican.  Besides  his  confession  that  he  had 
been  in  secret  correspondence  with  the  Prussian  monarch, 
the  other  evidences  of  his  guilt  were  so  convincing  that  his 
imprisonment  lasted  until  1775,  when  he  was  relieved  from 
it  only  by  death.  The  passions  of  the  order  were,  of  course, 
aroused  to  exceeding  violence — even  to  such  an  excess  that 
the  pope  himself,  although  the  infallible  "  vicar  of  Christ," 
did  not  escape  their  vengeance.  They  published  malicious 
libels  against  him,  charging  that  he  had  been  guilty  of  sim- 
ony in  procuring  his  election,  and  calling  him  by  the  oppro- 
brious name  of  Antichrist!  They  became  so  impassioned 
in  their  attacks  upon  him,  that,  when  his  death  occurred, 
during  the  next  year,  i^ider  very  suspicious  circumstances, 
they  were  charged  with  having  procured  it  hj  poison  !(") 

(")  The  question  whether  or  not  Pope  Clement  XIV.  was  poisoned  by  the 
Jesuits  has  given  rise  to  much  acrimonious  discussion.  On  one  side  it  is 
confidently  asserted  that  he  was ;  while,  on  the  other,  it  is  stoutly  denied.  It 
is  said  that,  after  his  death,  "his  body  turned  instantly  black,  and  appeared 
in  a  state  of  putrefaction,  which  induced  the  people  present  to  impute  his 
death  to  the  effect  of  poison  ;  and  it  was  very  generally  reported  that  he  had 
fallen  a  sacrifice  to  the  resentment  of  the  Jesuits." — Letters  of  Pope  Clem- 
ent XIV.,  etc.,  by  Le  Jeune,  vol.  i.,  p.  45.  St.  Priest  says  that  "the 
scientific  men  who  were  called  in  to  embalm  his  body  found  the  features 
livid,  the  lips  black,  the  abdomen  inflated,  the  limbs  emaciated,  and  covered 
with  violet  spots ;  the  size  of  the  heart  was  much  diminished,  and  all  the 
muscles  detached  and  decomposed  in  the  spine.  They  filled  the  body  with 
perfumes  and  aromatic  substances  ;  but  nothing  would  dispel  the  mephitic 
exhalations.  The  entrails  burst  the  vessels  in  which  they  were  deposited  ; 
and  when  his  pontifical  robes  were  taken  from  his  body,  a  great  portion  of 
the  skin  adhered  to  them.  The  hair  of  his  head  remain<?d  entire  upon  the 
velvet  pillows  upon  which  he  rested,  and  with  the  slightest  friction  his  nails 
fell  off." — Apud  NicoHni,  pp.  417,  418.     Cardinal  De  Bernis,  who  had  been 


102  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

The  consequence  was,  that,  on  account  of  the  extreme  con- 
tempt in  which  they  were  held  in  all  the  Roman  Catholic 
states,  they  were  compelled  to  seek  refuge  elsewhere.  Their 
iniquities  were  so  great,  and  were  so  well  understood,  that 
there  was  not  a  single  Roman  Catholic  government  in  Eu- 
rope that  would  tolerate  them.  They  found  shelter  only 
within  the  dominions  of  Frederick  the  Great  of  Prussia,  and 
Catharine  of  Russia — the  former  a  Protestant  prince,  and 
the  latter  the  ecclesiastical  head  of  the  Greek  Church. 
There  is  some  difficulty  in  discovering  the  reasons  which  in- 
fluenced these  monarchs  in  consenting  to  receive  the  fugi- 
tives, but  they  were,  probably,  twofold:  to  cultivate  the 
principles  of  monarchy,  upon  which  the  Jesuit  constitution 
was  based ;  and  to  reconcile  the  Roman  Catholic  citizens  of 
Poland  to  the  partition  of  that  unfortunate  country.  What- 
ever the  motive  was,  however,  they  were  subsequently  ex- 
minister  of  Louis  XV.  of  France,  was  convinced  that  his  death  was  not  from 
natural  causes,  and,  soon  after  the  occurrence,  wrote  thus:  "When  others 
shall  come  to  know  as  much  as  I  do,  from  certain  documents  which  the  late 
pope  communicated  to  me,  the  suppression  [of  the  Jesuits]  will  be  deemed 
very  just  and  very  necessary.  The  circumstances  which  have  preceded,  ac- 
companied, and  followed  the  death  of  the  late  pope  excite  equal  horror  and 
compassion."  And  speaking  of  Pope  Pius  VI.,  who  was  the  immediate  suc- 
cessor of  Clement  XIV.,  he  said :  "  The  pope  has  certain  moments  of  frank- 
ness, in  which  his  true  sentiments  show  themselves.  I  shall  never  forget 
three  or  four  effusions  of  his  heart  which  he  betrayed  when  with  me,  by 
which  I  can  judge  that  he  was  well  aware  of  the  unhappy  end  of  his  prede- 
cessor, and  that  he  was  anxious  not  to  run  the  same  risks. " — Apud  Nicoiini, 
pp.  419,  420.  Gioberti  produced  the  statement  of  a  Dr.  Bonelli,  "famous 
for  learning  and  probity,  almost  an  ocular  witness  of  the  facts,"  to  the  effect 
that  the  pope  was  poisoned. — Ibid.,  p.  418. 

The  Jesuits,  in  defense  of  their  order,  rely  upon  a  statement  made  some 
months  after  the  death  of  the  pope  by  the  apostolic  physician  and  the  pope's 
"ordinary  doctor."  They  declared  the  charge  that  the  pope  had  been  poi- 
soned to  be  false,  but  offered  no  proofs  to  sustain  the  opinion.  And  the  rea- 
sons they  gave  were  said  to  be  so  "strange  and  suspicious  as  rather  to 
strengthen  than  diminish  the  opinion  of  those  who  thought  differently." — 
Ibid. 

Cormenin  has  no  doubt  upon  the  subject,  after  having  examined  all  the 
evidence.  He  says,  "  The  dispatch  of  the  embassador  of  Spain  relates,  in  its 
fullest  details,  the  examination  of  the  dead  body,  which  was  made  the  day 
succeeding  his  death,  and  adds  to  the  irrefutable  proofs  of  the  poisoning  of 
the  pontiff,  and  the  guilt  of  the  Jesuits."— Cormejun,  vol.  ii.,  p.  398. 


ALEXANDER'S  DECREE  CONCERNING  THEM.         103 

pelled  also  from  Russia  by  an  imperial  decree  of  Alexander, 
wherein  he  declared : 

"  It  has  been,  however,  proved  that  they  have  not  realized 
the  duties  imposed  on  them  by  gratitude,  and  that  humility 
commanded  by  the  Christian  religion.  Instead  of  remain- 
ing peaceable  inhabitants  of  a  foreign  land,  they  have  en- 
deavored to  disturb  the  Greek  religion,  which,  from  time  im- 
memorial, has  been  the  predominant  religion  in  this  country. 
They  began  by  abusing  the  confidence  they  had  obtained, 
and  have  turned  away  from  our  religion  young  men  who  had 
been  intrusted  to  them,  and  some  weak  and  ignorant  women 
whom  they  have  converted  to  their  own  Church.  To  induce 
a  man  to  abjure  his  faith,  the  faith  of  his  ancestors,  to  ex- 
tinguish in  him  the  love  of  those  who  profess  the  same  be- 
lief, to  render  him  a  stranger  to  his  country,  to  sow  tares 
and  animosity  among  families,  to  tear  the  son  from  the  fa- 
ther, the  daughter  from  the  mother,  to  stir  up  division  among 
the  children  of  the  same  Church — is  that  the  voice  and  the 

will  of  God,  and  of  his  holy  son  Jesus  Christ  ? After 

such  actions,  we  are  no  more  surprised  that  these  monks  are 
expelled  from  all  countries,  and  nowhere  tolerated.  Where, 
in  fact,  is  the  state  that  would  tolerate  in  its  bosom  those 
who  sow  in  it  hatred  and  discord  ?"(^) 

The  marvelous  influence  of  the  Jesuits  was  not  entire- 
ly destroyed,  even  in  the  Roman  Catholic  states,  although 
greatly  weakened,  by  the  suppression  of  the  order,  notwith- 
standing the  bull  by  which  they  were  suppressed  was  issued 
ex  cathedra^  and  was,  therefore,  the  official  act  of  an  infallible 
pope  !  Since  their  pontifical  incorporation  by  the  bull  Regi- 
mini  Militantis  Ecclesim^  issued  by  Pope  Paul  III.  in  1540, 
it  had  so  thoroughly  permeated  all  orders  of  society  that  it 
was  still  visible,  more  or  less,  in  every  direction.  By  sub- 
verting the  morality  of  the  Gospel,  and  substituting  their 
immorab  maxims  for  religion,  and  by  endeavoring  to  destroy 
all  the  "  fundamental  laws  which  form  the  basis  of  all  states 
and  governments,"  they  "  brought  the  Encyclopedists  into 
existence ;  the  most  conspicuous  of  whom,  in  fact,  as  Voltaire, 
Diderot,  Helvetius,  Marmontel,  St.  Lambert,  Lametrie,  and 

Q)  Nicolini,  p.  434. 


104  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

many  others,  had  issued  from  Jesuitical  colleges,  or  had  had 
Jesuits  as  their  tutors." (*)  And  when,  after  the  French  Rev- 
olution, it  had  been  demonstrated  to  the  sovereigns  of  Eu- 
rope that  it  was  not  impossible  for  the  people  to  attempt  the 
destruction  of  monarchy  and  the  establishment  of  republican 
institutions,  and  it  became  necessary  for  them  to  counteract, 
and,  if  possible,  to  destroy,  the  influence  of  this  sentiment, 
the  re-establishment  of  the  Jesuits  was  considered,  by  many 
of  them,  as  the  most  certain  and  efiective  means  of  accom- 
plishing that  object.  On  the  part  of  these  sovereigns,  the 
motive  was  entirely  political ;  but  they  had  no  difficulty  in 
enlisting  the  assistance  of  the  pope,  who  had  as  ardent  at- 
tachment as  any  of  them  to  the  principles  of  monarchy,  es- 
pecially to  that  part  of  the  Jesuit  constitution  which  teaches 
implicit  and  unquestioning  obedience  to  superiors.  Pius  YII. 
was  then  pope.  The  complications  in  which  he  had  become 
involved  with  Napoleon  I.,  who  had  re-annexed  the  states  of 
the  Church  to  the  empire  of  France,  declared  himself  King 
of  Italy,  and  forbidden  the  pope  to  hold  communication  with 
any  church  in  France,  made  it  necessary  for  him  to  resort  to 
some  measure  of  relief  against  the  threatened  destruction  of 
papal  authority.  The  Jesuits  seemed  to  him  to  be  the  most 
fit  auxiliaries  in  the  work  of  regaining  power,  inasmuch  as 
the  superiority  of  a  single  individual  as  the  governing  au- 
thority over  the  inferior  masses  of  the  people  constituted 
the  central  idea  of  their  system ;  and  he,  accordingly,  re-es- 
tablished the  order  in  1814,  after  they  had  been  under  the 
pontifical  ban  for  thirty-seven  years.  Besides  the  political 
motive  which  influenced  the  sovereigns  who  favored  the  res- 
toration, he  had,  also,  a  religious  one,  which  was  to  coun- 
teract the  influence  of  Protestantism,  then  rapidly  gaining 
ground  in  all  the  states  of  Christendom.  By  his  memorable 
bull  for  the  purpose  —  Solicitudo  Omnium — he  referred  to 
the  "abundant  fruits"  which  had  been  produced  in  Russia 
and  Sicily  by  the  workings  of  the  order,  and  declared  that, 
in  the  then  dangerous  condition  of  "the  Christian  republic," 
it  would  be  "  a  great  crime  "  if  he  did  not  re-establish  it — if, 
said  he,  "placed  in  the  bark  of  Peter,  tossed  and  assailed  by 

(*)  Gioberti,  apud  Nicolini,  p.  437. 


FAVORED  BY  GREGORY  XVI.  105 

continual  storms,  we  refused  to  employ  the  vigorous  and  ex- 
perienced rowers^  who  volunteer  their  services,  in  order  to 
break  the  waves  of  a  sea  which  threatens  every  moment 
shipwreck  and  death."(^)  Therefore,  with  an  utter  disregard 
of  the  character  and  authority  of  Clement  XIV.,  he  abro- 
gated his  "  apostolic  letters  "  of  suppression ;  restored  the  so- 
ciety to  all  its  powers;  declared  that  it  should  be  consoli- 
dated "  more  and  more,  to  render  it  stronger ;"  counseled  its 
members  to  "exactly  observe  the  rule  prescribed  by  their 
founder;"  and  announced  that,  notwithstanding  all  that  Clem- 
ent, an  infallible  pope,  had  said  and  done,  it  would  hence- 
forth be  considered  an  act  of  "  audacious  temerity  "  for  any 
one  to  "  oppose  "  his  infallible  decree ;  "  and  that,  should  any 
one  take  upon  him  to  attempt  it,  let  him  know,"  said  he, 
"  that  he  will  thereby  incur  the  indignation  of  Almighty 
God^  and  of  the  holy  apostles,  Peter  and  Paid''\'^) — that  is, 
that  the  curse  of  God  would  rest  upon  whomsoever  should 
believe  what  his  predecessor,  Clement  XIY.,  had  said  about 
the  immoral  maxims  and  dangerous  teachings  of  the  Jesuits, 
or  should  dare  to  obey  his  pontifical  brief!  In  such  a  con- 
test of  authority,  the  last  pope  always  has  the  advantage. 
He  can  make  his  pontifical  power,  as  one  of  the  chief  ele- 
ments of  his  infallibility,  more  immediately  and  sensibly  felt. 
This  act  of  restoration  was  done  with  cool  audacity,  and 
with  the  especial  object  of  arresting  the  progress  of  the  mod- 
ern and  advancing  nations.  It  should  excite  no  surprise, 
therefore,  that  the  Jesuits,  when,  seventeen  years  afterward, 
Gregory  XVI.  became  pope,  availed  themselves  of  their  re- 
newed strength  and  partially  revived  popularity  in  the  Ro- 
man Catholic  states  to  convert  the  papacy  into  a  machine 
for  the  advancement  of  their  ambitious  projects.  Under 
such  favorable  auspices,  they  were  soon  enabled  to  get  con- 
trol of  and  shape  the  whole  policy  of  the  papal  court.  Greg- 
ory XVI.,  yielding  to  their  influence  as  well  as  his  own  in- 
clination, became  a  despot,  and  the  supporter  of  despotism  in 
its  most  odious  and  oppressive  forms.  The  severity  of  his 
pontifical  government  soon  excited  the  people  of  Italy  to  as- 
sert their  independence,  and  to  inaugurate  an  effort  to  de- 

C)  Nicolini,  p.  442;  Cormenin,  vol.  ii.,  p.  423.  (*")  Nicolini,  p.  447. 


106  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

prive  him  of  his  temporal  crown ;  and,  to  defend  himself 
against  them,  he  threw  himself  completely  into  the  arms  of 
the  ultramontane  or  Jesuit  party.  As  the  chief  object  of 
this  party  was  to  check  the  popular  progress  toward  free- 
dom in  the  papal  states,  as  well  as  elsewhere,  the  pope  soon 
identified  himself  wdth  such  measures  and  principles  as  ren- 
dered him  extremely  odious  to  a  large  part  of  his  Roman 
Catholic  subjects,  who  were  tired  of  papal  bondage.  And 
this  feeling  against  him  was,  doubtless,  increased  on  account 
of  his  supposed  want  of  private  virtue.  Whatever  was  the 
cause  of  his  unpopularity,  however,  he  not  only  realized  it, 
but  had  sagacity  enough  to  know  that  the  corruption  pre- 
vailing at  Rome,  before  the  eyes  of  the  people,  would,  if  he 
lost  his  temporal  power,  cause  him  to  be  driven  away  from 
that  city,  and  lead,  in  all  probability,  to  excesses  similar  to 
those  which  had  attended  the  French  Revolution;  for  at 
Rome,  as  well  as  in  France,  the  people  had  witnessed  so 
much  impiety  that  they  were  driven  almost  to  the  convic- 
tion that  religion  was  a  mere  disguise,  worn  for  selfish  and 
iniquitous  purposes.  And  he  also  knew  that  the  habitual 
intolerance  of  the  papacy,  and  its  despotic  management  of 
civil  affairs,  would  incite  the  enraged  population  to  deal 
harshly  with  him  and  his  ecclesiastical  advisers;  and  that  he 
would  not  be  likely  to  find  a  safe  or  desirable  asylum  among 
the  similarly  enraged  populations  of  any  of  the  Roman  Cath- 
olic states.  And  it  was  on  this  account  that  his  attention 
was  directed  toward  the  United  States,  and  the  hope  was 
excited  in  his  mind  that  the  tolerance  of  our  institutions 
would  enable  him,  through  the  agency  of  his  Jesuit  allies, 
to  build  up  a  papal  party  here,  suflSciently  strong  and  pow- 
erful to  regain  the  authority  which  the  papacy  was  destined 
to  lose  among  the  Roman  Catholic  populations  of  Europe. 
The  thought  was  creditable  enough  to  him  as  a  politician, 
but  it  is  one  against  which  the  people  of  this  country  should 
not  be  slow  to  protest  whenever  they  are  informed  of  its 
existence  in  the  papal  mind,  and  of  any  attempt  to  effectu- 
ate such  an  object. 

Apart  from  the  kind  of  service  which  Pope  Gregory  XYI. 
expected  of  the  Jesuits,  it  is  exceedingly  difficult  to  tell  why 
they  have  been  suffered  to  acquire  such  unbounded  influence 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  JESUITS  UNNECESSARY.     107 

as  they  possess  over  all  the  affairs  of  the  papacy,  and  why 
they  are  considered  so  necessary  to  the  prosperity  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church.     They  call  their  society  a  religious 
association,  but  it  is  scarcely  entitled  to  that  designation. 
The  Church  existed  until  near  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth 
century  without  it.     Eighteen  of  its   ecumenical   councils 
had  been  held  before  its  formation.     By  these — commencing 
with  that  of  Nice,  in  325,  and  ending  with  that  of  the  Fifth 
Lateran,  in  1512 — the  religious  faith  of  the  Church  was  well 
established.      The  bishops   who   composed   these   councils 
needed  no  aid  from  Ignatius  Loyola  and  his  followers  to 
take  care  of  the  affairs  of  the  Church,  either  to  declare  its 
doctrines  or  to  regulate  its  discipline.     The  "Society  of  Je- 
sus," therefore,  when  it  was  established  by  Pope  Paul  III, 
not  only  did  not  do  any  thing  to  add  to  or  improve  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Church,  but,  like  all  others  who  belonged  to 
the  Church,  its  members  professed  no  other  religion  than 
that   already  established  by  the    ecumenical  councils.     Its 
organization  was  entirely  outside  the  Church.     Wherefore, 
then,  the  necessity  of  establishing  this,  the  most  secret  so- 
ciety in  the  world,  when  the  popes  at  all  times  have  de- 
clared that  God's  curse  is  resting  upon  all  secret  societies  ? 
Manifestly,  the  object  was  to  build  up  an  association  capa- 
ble of  exercising  external  i30wer,  not  necessary  to  religion, 
but  as  the  means  of  training  and  educating  those  who  were 
brought  under  its  influence,  by  means  of  schools  and  the  con- 
fessional, to  that  submissive  obedience  upon  which  the  Papa- 
cy is  founded.     Paul  III.  avows  as  much  in  his  bull  estab- 
lishing the  order.     He  says  that  it  is  designed  "expressly 
for  the  instruction  of  boys  and   other  ignorant  people  in 
Christianity,  and,  above  all,  for  the  spiritual  consolation  of 
the  faithful  in  Christ  by  hearing  confessions^ {^)     And,  as 
if  the  Church  did  not  already  possess  the  means  of  giving 
instruction   and  hearing   confessions,  he   empowers  "some 
among  them,"  meaning  Loyola,  to  "  draw  up  such  constitu- 
tions as  they  shall  judge  "  necessary.     They  have  no  power 
to  add  to  or  take  from  any  of  the  articles  of  faith.     Their 
religion  is  prescribed  by  the  Church;  their  constitution  is 

C)  Nicolini,  p.  28. 


108  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWEE. 

their  own,  and  to  it  alone  must  we  look  for  the  nature  and 
character  of  their  organization. 

Now,  let  any  reader  take  the  pains  to  examine  the  provis- 
ions of  the  constitution  of  the  "  Society  of  Jesus  "  and  he 
will  not  find  one  word  in  it  essential  to  religious  faith,  noth- 
ing to  show  what  Christ,  or  the  apostles,  or  the  fathers, 
taught  in  reference  to  any  of  the  fundamental  doctrines  of 
Christianity.  On  the  other  hand,  he  will  find  provisions  for 
the  initiation  of  novices,  for  scholars,  coadjutors,  the  pro- 
fessed, provincials,  rectors,  superiors,  and  administrators ; 
the  duties  of  each  being  minutely  defined.  Much  pertains 
to  the  working  of  the  machinery ;  but  there  are  certain  prin- 
ciples running  through  the  whole  organization  which  suffi- 
ciently show  how  little  claim  it  has  to  be  known  as  a  relig- 
ious society.  Each  member  is  required  to  take  a  vow  that 
he  will  understand  "all  things  according  to  the  constitution 
of  the  society ;"  that  he  will  regard  the  general  of  the  socie- 
ty as  "  holding  the  place  of  God ;"  that  he  will  go  wherever 
"  the  pope  pro  tempore  chooses  to  send  him ;"  that  he  will 
consider  the  general  as  "absolute  master  of  persons  and 
things ;"  that  "  there  should  be  no  will,  no  opinion  but  the 
general's,"  and  no  opposing,  no  contradicting,  nor  showing 
an  opinion,  in  any  case,  opposed  to  his ;  that  he  "  must  re- 
gard the  superior  as  Christ  the  Lord,  and  must  strive  to 
acquire  perfect  resignation  and  denial  of  his  own  will  and 
judgment,  in  all  things  conforming  his  will  and  judgment 
to  that  which  the  superior  wills  and  judges ;"  that  this  virtue 
of  obedience  "  must  be  perfect  in  every  point — in  execution, 
in  will,  in  intellect ;  doing  what  is  enjoined  with  all  celerity, 
spiritual  joy,  and  perseverance ;  persuading  ourself  that  ev- 
ery thing  is  just ;  suppressing  every  repugnant  thought  and 

judgment  of  one's  own,  in  a  certain  obedience and  let 

every  one  persuade  himself  that  he  who  lives  under  obe- 
dience should  be  moved  and  directed,  under  Divine  Provi- 
dence, by  his  superior,  just  as  if  he  were  a  corp.^e,  which  al- 
lows itself  to  be  moved  and  led  in  any  direction ;"  that  no 
earthly  authority  "  can  involve  an  obligation  to  commit  sin, 
mortal  or  venial,  unless  the  superior  command  it  in  the  name 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ;  or  in  virtue  of  holy  obedience ;" 
and  that  each  member  must  "  concentrate  all  his  desires  and 


DOCTRINE  OF  SUBMISSION.  109 

affections  upon  the  society,"  even  to  the  extent  of  putting 
away  "  all  strong  affection  for  his  parents. "(®) 

It  is  stated  by  Maclaine,in  a  note  to  "Mosheim's  Ecclesias- 
tical History,"  that  when  Loyola  first  laid  before  Pope  Paul 
III.  the  plan  for  the  organization  of  his  society,  and  desired 
his  approval  of  it,  there  was  a  provision  which  restricted 
somewhat  the  promised  obedience  to  the  pope.  This  hav- 
ing given  rise  to  objection,  it  was  so  changed  as  to  bind  the 
order  "  by  a  solemn  vow  of  implicit,  blind,  and  unlimited 
submission  and  obedience  to  the  Roman  pontiff;"(*)  which 
removed  every  obstacle.  Herein  lies  the  true  secret  of  the 
papal  attachment  for  this  mysterious  organization.  It  ac- 
counts for  its  re-establishment  during  the  present  century 
by  Pope  Pius  VII.,  and  the  readiness  with  which  Pope  Greg- 
ory XVI.  subsequently  permitted  the  Jesuits  to  direct  his 
pontificate.  They  were  "  vigorous  and  experienced  rowers ;" 
and  in  consideration  for  the  privilege  of  shaping  the  policy 
of  the  papacy,  they  were  always  ready  to  obey  the  papal 
commands,  although,  in  doing  so,  they  should  be  required  to 
put  themselves  in  secret  and  insidious  conflict  with  all  exist- 
ing governments.  Undoubtedly,  Pope  Gregory  XVI.  under- 
stood this,  when,  finding  the  people  of  Italy  and  other  Eu- 
ropean states  struggling  hard  for  republican  forms  of  gov- 
ernment, and  seeing  the  temporal  sceptre  slipping  from  his 
hands,  he  declared  that  he  was  not  pope  anywhere  else  in 
the  world  except  in  the  United  States ! 

It  should  excite  no  surprise  that  the  present  pope,  Pius 
IX.,  in  the  midst  of  still  greater  embarrassments,  should  suf- 
fer similar  thoughts  to  obtain  possession  of  his  mind;  in- 
asmuch as,  by  the  same  attachment  to  the  Jesuits,  he  has 
equally  secured  their  services  and  devotion.     When,  at  the 


O  Nicolini,  pp.  30-56;  Steinmetz,  vol.  i.,  p.  251,  and  note  1;  "History 
of  the  Society  of  Jesus,"  by  Daurignac,  vol.  i.,  p.  14  ;  "History  of  the  Popes," 
by  Ranke,  p.  78  ;  "  Encyclopaedia  Britannica,"  4th  Edinburgh  ed.,  vol.  xi.,  p. 
132 ;  Maclaine's  "  Mosheim's  Church  History,"  vol.  ii.,  p.  45,  and  note ;  Cor- 
menin,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  208,  209  ;  "  Encyclopaedia  Americana,"  vol.  vii.,  p.  198. 
In  the  last  work  there  is  an  article  in  defense  of  the  ordei',  written  by  a 
Jesuit,  wherein  it  is  said  that  "  a  chief  object  of  the  Jesuits  was  the  defense 
of  the  Church  against  Protestantism." — Ibid.,  p.  208. 
.    (®)  Maclaine's  "  Mosheim,"  vol.  ii.,  p.  45,  note. 


110  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

beginning  of  his  pontificate,  he  was  supposed  to  be  influ- 
enced by  other  motives,  and  gave  assurances  that  many  of 
the  abuses  in  the  civil  government  of  Rome  should  be  re- 
formed, he  felt  himself  secure  in  his  position  without  their 
aid.  But  after  he  has  lived  to  realize,  what  Gregory  XVI. 
so  much  feared,  the  loss  of  his  temporal  power,  he,  like  him, 
trusts  the  papal  bark  to  the  same  "  vigorous  and  experi- 
enced rowers,"  hoping  that  it  may  find  safe  mooring  in  the 
United  States ;  realizing,  as  he  does,  that  it  is  only  under 
the  shelter  of  Protestant  toleration  that  the  members  of  this 
proscribed  society  can  now  find  a  resting-place.  Therefore, 
in  June,  1871,  on  the  25th  anniversary  of  his  coronation  as 
pope,  when  he  addressed  a  deputation  of  Roman  Catholics 
from  the  United  States,  he  was  led  on  by  the  earnestness  of 
his  zeal  to  speak  of  this  country  as  if  he  considered  it  the 
last  and  only  hope  for  the  papacy.  The  number  of  this  dep- 
utation was  only  twenty-six;  but  the  imaginative  pontiff  be- 
came so  enthused  that  he  exclaimed,  '•''Look  at  all  America  P"* 
evidently  considering  them  as  representing  the  whole  nation. 
After  one  of  the  priests— the  Rev.  Mr.  Leray,  of  the  Natchez 
diocese — had  delivered  to  him  an  address  on  behalf  of  the 
bishops, clergy,  and  laity  of  that  diocese,  the  "Holy  Father" 
made  a  response  in  which  the  following  sentences  occur : 

"I  have  heard  of  what  has  been  doing  in  America  in  favor 
of  the  Vicar  of  Jesus  Christ — of  the  meetings  that  have  been 
held  there.  I  have  continually  received  testimonials  of  at- 
tachment and  proofs  of  devotion  from  the  Catholics  of  the 
United  States — devotion  not  only  of  the  mind  and  heart,  but 

of  the  hand  too The  bearing  of  the  Catholics  of  the 

United  States  fills  me  with  hope /or  the  future  of  the  Church. 
You  are  a  numerous  people,  and  I  know  you  have  all  kinds 
of  men  among  you.  There  is  a  party  of  oppositio7i,  who 
teach  evei'y  thing  contrary  to  law  and  order ;  men  who  have 
gone  among  you  to  disseminate  e^ery  hind  of  evil,  who  have 
oio  reverence  for  God  or  his  laic ;  but,  still,  the  progress  of 
Catholicity  is  such  as  to  fill  us  with  well-grounded  confidence 

for  the  future There  was  a  cardinal  once  who  was  a 

prefect  of  the  congregation He  was  wont  to  prophesy 

about  America.     It  was  a  prophecy  in  a  broad  sense 

He  used  to  say  so  earnestly  that  the  salvation  of  the  Church 


THE  HOPE  OF  TRIUMPH  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES.    HI 

would  come  from  America^  that  it  made  a  deep  impression 
on  me,  and  I  hold  to  it.  I  believe  great  blessings  will  come 
to  the  faith  from  America,  and  I  pray  for  you  always  that 
God  may  spread  his  truths  among  you,  and  that  they  may 
take  deep  root,  flourish,  and  bear  fruit." (") 

This  language  is  not  difficult  of  interpretation  ;  its  import 
can  be  easily  perceived.  Manifestly,  the  amiable  old  pon- 
tiff has  suflered  himself  to  be  persuaded  into  the  belief  that 
the  Roman  Catholics  alone  are  the  lawful  possessors  of  the 
United  States,  and  that  the  Protestants,  composing  "  a  party 
of  opposition"  of  "  all  kinds  of  men,"  have  "gone  among" 
them,  teaching  "every  thing  contrary  to  law  and  order," 
and  "every  kind  of  evil,"  without  any  "reverence  for  God 
or  his  law."  He  seems  to  think  that  this  state  of  things  can 
not  last  always,  because  "the  Catholics  of  the  United  States" 
are  devoting  "  the  mind  and  heart,"  and  "  the  hand,  too,"  to 
the  removal  of  the  evil  of  Protestantism  out  of  the  way. 
He  is  not  censurable,  either  for  this  belief,  or  the  words  in 
which  he  expresses  it,  having  no  knowledge  of  the  temper  of 
our  people,  or  of  the  nature  and  spirit  of  our  institutions,  in 
any  other  wise  than  as  he  esteems  them  to  be  in  antagonism 
to  the  papacy.  His  followers  mislead  him  by  their  intemper- 
ate zeal  and  wild  prophecies  of  success.  (")     Nevertheless,  he 

('")  Freeman's  Journal  and  Catholic  Register,  New  York,  June  22d,  1871. 

(")  After  Victor  Emmanuel  occupied  Rome,  numerous  indignation  meet- 
ings were  held  in  the  United  States.  At  one,  in  Binghamton,  New  York, 
after  high  mass,  it  was  resolved,  "that  we  will  freely,  if  necessary,  devote 
our  worldly  goods  and  our  lives  in  defense  of  its  [the  Church's]  doctrines, 
and  in  the  restoration  of  the  temporal  power  of  the  visible  head  of  the 
Church."  At  another,  in  Jackson,  Mississippi,  it  was  said :  "As  American 
citizens,  we  feel  that  we  are  entitled  to  the  protection  of  our  Government  in 
our  vested  rights,  which  have  been  violated  by  the  Piedmontese  Govern- 
ment," etc.  At  another,  at  Los  Angeles,  California,  the  pope  is  spoken  of 
as  ^^  the  pontiff-king  of  more  than  two  hundred  millions  of  'every  tribe  and 
tongue  and  nation.'"  And  protests  like  these  were  gathered  into  a  single 
sheet,  and  sent  to  the  pope.  In  reference  to  another  great  demonstration, 
in  Minnesota,  where  an  immense  multitude  pledged  "their  lives,  if  need  be, 
to  restore  the  sovereign  pontiff  to  his  rightful  throne,"  and  drive  "from  the 
sacred  city  the  hirelings  of  the  tyrant  robber,"  it  was  said,  in  the  same  paper, 
"Those  resolutions  may  seem  to  some  to  sound  lik^  bombast;  and,  in- 
deed, there  is  reason  to  think  so  now,  when  the  rights  of  Catholic  American 
citizens  can  be  outraged  in  Rome  without  incurring  the  displeasure  of  our 


112  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

has  information  enough  to  know  that  his  hope  and  expecta- 
tions are  chiefly  based  upon  the  fact  that  there  is  no  other 
place  in  the  world,  except  under  the  protection  of  Protest- 
ant toleration,  where  the  papal  defenders  possess  the  free- 
dom necessary  to  avow  the  principles  of  the  papacy  with- 
out molestation,  and  without  incurring  such  opposition  from 
governments  and  peoples  as  has  already  dealt  it  a  death- 
blow in  every  Roman  Catholic  country  in  Europe.  Un- 
doubtedly, he  relies  upon  this  toleration,  as  opening  a  broad 
field  for  papal  operations ;  and  hence  the  exceeding  activity 
of  his  hierarchy  in  the  United  States  in  executing  the  task 
he  has  assigned  them.  Pius  IX.  has  none  of  the  private 
vices  of  Gregory  XVI.  and  many  other  popes  to  answer  for, 
his  purity  of  life  being  freely  admitted  on  all  hands ;  but  he 
is  none  the  less  ambitious  on  that  account,  none  the  less  un- 
der Jesuit  control,  and  none  the  less  resolved  upon  employ- 
ing all  his  pontifical  power  to  strike  down  every  thing,  and 
to  abrogate  every  constitution  and  law,  which  stands  in  the 
way  of  the  complete  triumph  of  papal  absolutism  over  the 
world.  Evidences  of  this  abound  in  all  the  history  of  his 
pontificate  since  his  first  flight  from  Rome  to  escape  the 
vengeance  of  his  Roman  Catholic  subjects. 

While  assigning  these  purposes  to  the  pope  and  his  hie- 
rarchs,  however,  we  should  not  lail  to  keep  in  mind  the  dis- 
tinction between  Roman  Catholicism,  as  a  system  of  relig- 
ion, and  the  papacy,  as  an  all-absorbing  religio- political 
power,  founded  upon  human  ambition.  Nor  should  we  for- 
get that  distinction  which  exists  to  a  great  extent,  especial- 
ly in  the  United  States,  between  intelligent  Roman  Catholic 
laymen  and  the  priesthood.  There  are  thousands  of  these 
laymen  who  do  not  and  can  not,  in  their  consciences,  ap- 
prove of  all  that  is  done  and  said  in  behalf  of  papal  suprem- 
acy in  this  country,  in  any  other  sense  than  as  they  suppose 
it  to  involve  the  mere  triumph  of  their  religious  belief  over 
all  opposing  forms  of  faith.     They  believe  Protestantism  to 

present  rulers.  But  the  day  may  not  be  far  distant  ^hen  we  may  have  again, 
as  we  had  before,  a  President  in  Washington  who  will  protect  those  rights. 
And  then  we  will  show  those  people  that  we  mean  something  more  than  simply 
putting  resolutions  on  paper. ^^ — New  York  Free7nans  Journal,  FQbm&vy  4:th, 
1871. 


DIFFERENCE  BETWEEN  PRIESTS  AND  LAYMEN.      113 

be  error,  and  all  its  forms  of  religion  to  be  false ;  and  yet, 
in  return  for  its  toleration  to  them,  would  be  perfectly  will- 
ing to  extend  like  toleration  to  it,  even  where  they  had  the 
power  to  withhold  it.  But  these  men,  good  and  faithful  cit- 
izens in  all  respects,  sulFer  themselves  to  occupy  a  false  posi- 
tion, by  allowing  their  acquiescence  in  that  to  which  their 
judgment  does  not  assent,  to  be  inferred  from  the  silence 
which  the  papacy  imposes  upon  them.  But  the  priesthood, 
especially  the  Jesuit  part  of  them,  compose  an  entirely  dis- 
tinct and  different  class.  They  are  educated,  instructed, 
drilled,  and  set  apart  for  the  special  work  in  which  they  are 
engaged,  with  no  other  thoughts  to  occupy  their  minds  and 
no  other  earthly  objects  to  accomplish.  They  are  the  serv- 
ants of  the  papacy,  in  the  same  sense  in  which  a  slave  is  the 
servant  of  his  master,  and  are  indebted  to  the  pope  for  all 
the  enormous  power  they  employ.  They  swear  obedience 
and  submission  to  him  as  the  infallible  "  Vicar  of  Christ ;" 
and  perfectly  well  understand  that  if  they  failed  to  render 
this  obedience  and  submission  to  the  full  extent  demanded 
by  him,  their  official  robes  would  be  instantaneously  stripped 
off.  They  are  simply  a  band  of  ecclesiastical  office-holders, 
held  together  by  the  "  cohesive  power  "  of  a  common  ambi- 
tion, as  compactly  as  an  army  of  soldiers ;  and  are  governed 
by  a  commander-in-chief  whose  brow  they  would  adorn  for- 
ever with  a  kingly  crown^  and  who  wields  the  papal  lash 
over  them  with  imperial  threatenings.  All  these,  with  ex- 
ceptions, if  any,  too  few  to  be  observed,  are  laboring,  with 
wonderful  assiduity,  to  educate  the  whole  membership  of 
their  Church  up  to  the  point  of  accepting,  without  hesita- 
tion or  inquiry,  all  the  Jesuit  teachings  in  reference  to  the 
papacy,  as  a  necessary  and  indispensable  part  of  their  relig- 
ious faith ;  so  that  whensoever  the  papal  order  shall  be  is- 
sued, they  may  march  their  columns,  unbroken,  into  the  pa- 
pal army.  These  are  they  who  write  books,  pamphlets,  and 
tracts,  and  fill  the  columns  of  their  newspapers  with  fulsome 
and  blasphemous  adulation  of  the  pope,  applying  to  him 
terms  which  are  due  only  to  God,  all  devoted  to  the  object 
of  exterminating  Protestantism,  civil  and  religious,  and  ex- 
tending the  sceptre  of  the  papacy  over  the  world.  They 
manufacture,  to  order,  the  literature  of  Romanism,  and  tax 

8 


114  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

their  ingenuity  to  the  utmost  to  make  it,  in  all  its  varia- 
tions, centre  in  these  grand  designs.  Examples  are  innumer- 
able, and  almost  any  one  of  them,  selected  from  the  multi- 
tude, is  an  index  to  the  remainder. 

In  1862,  a  Jesuit  priest,  the  Rev.  F.  X.  Weninger,  made 
what  he  chose  to  designate  "an  appeal  to  candid  Ameri- 
cans," on  the  subject  of  "Protestantism  and  Infidelity,"  which 
is  the  offensive  title  to  his  book.  He  represented  himself  as 
having  been  engaged  for  thirteen  years  "as  a  Catholic  mis- 
sionary throughout  the  United  States,"  and,  consequently, 
as  having  had  extraordinary  opportunities  of  observing  the 
character  and  habits  of  our  Protestant  population,  as  well  as 
having  become  familiar  with  the  working  of  our  institutions. 
These  facts  were  stated,  of  course,  to  give  weight  and  au- 
thority to  his  opinions ;  for  while  he  professed  to  be  address- 
ing Protestants,  but  few  of  whom  would  see  his  book,  he 
was,  with  true  Jesuit  cunning,  really  addressing  the  mem- 
bers of  his  own  Church,  with  the  design  of  convincing  them 
that  Protestantism  is  already  a  failure,  so  as  to  stimulate 
them  to  renewed  activity  in  their  exertions  to  repress  and 
exterminate  it. 

He  scarcely  enters  upon  his  subject  before  announcing 
that  ''''Protestantism  is  ending  m  the  desolation  of  heathen- 
ism,;'''^ that  is,  that  we,  in  this  country,  are  fast  becoming  pa- 
ganized, as  the  result  of  our  total  want  of  religion  or  of  any 
religious  convictions.  Then,  in  contrast  to  this  alarming 
condition  into  which  we  have  been  plunged  by  our  infidel- 
ity, he  points  us  to  Roman  Catholicism  as  furnishing  the 
only  means  of  making  us  acquainted,  personally,  with  Christ. 
He  says:  "The  real  presence  of  Jesus  Christ  makes  a  heaven 
of  every  Catholic  Church  on  the  whole  earth,"  for  there  he 
can  be  conversed  with  "  face  to  face,"  every  day  and  every 
hour.C'^)  He  blasphemously  insists  that  "in  holy  commun- 
ion Jesus  enters  our  interior,  really  and  substantially,  bodi/ 
and  soul;'\'^)  and  that  Protestantism,  having  robbed  us  of 
all  this  consolation,  has  left  us  "  no  better  off  than  infidels 
and  Jews."('*)     Hence  he  found  no  difficulty  in  concluding 

(")  "Protestantism  and  Infidelity," by  Weninger,  pp.  38,  39. 

0  76iJ.,p.  47.  C*)  Ibid., -p.  id. 


PROTESTANTISM  DENOUNCED.  115 

that  "  the  only  consolation  Protestantism  as  such  has  to  of- 
fer, is  a  wicked  one— sin,  but  believe ;"('')  his  over-anxiety 
to  assail  Protestantism  rendering  him  oblivious  to  the  fact 
that  his  own  Church,  and  the  order  to  which  he  belongs, 
both  teach  that  popes  and  priests  may  sin,  and  yet  remain 
the  infallible  representatives  of  God ;  and  may  be  guilty  of 
all  the  impurities  of  life,  and  yet  administer,  infallibly,  all 
the  sacraments  of  the  Church  !('^) 

As  if  he  were  an  oracle  whose  opinions  were  not  to  be 
questioned,  he  says,  "Protestantism  leads  to  despair,  be- 
cause it  denies  free-will."C')  That  it  is  "a  religion  of  im- 
moraUty.'\'^)  That  it  is  "  a  religion  of  disorder  and  despot- 
ism:\'')  That  it  is  "  a  religion  of  blasphemy:' (^')  That  it 
"came  from  licentious,  apostate  priests  and  monies,  and  from 
despotic,  licentious  sovereigns."" {^^)  That  it  "^s  c?ead"(") 
That  it  cherishes  "o5  reckless  disposition  to  calumniate.'''' i^^) 
That  "  modern  civilization  does  not  spring  from  Protestant- 
ism.''^ i^*)  And  that  infidelity  is  the  "  last  logical  consequence 
of  Protestantism.''''  (") 

All  the  counts  in  this  formidable  indictment  are  so  drawn 
as  to  display  the  skill  and  ingenuity  of  a  criminal  prosecu- 
tor ;  of  one  who  has  had  experience  in  all  the  formalities  of 
arraignment.  They  were  designed,  undoubtedly,  to  stimu- 
late the  ardor  of  the  papal  followers,  in  their  efforts  to  re- 
move all  this  irreligion  out  of  the  way ;  and,  possibly,  to 
cause  all  timid-minded  Protestants  to  shudder  at  the  thought 
of  the  rapidity  with  which  they  were  hastening  to  destruc- 
tion. He  rolled  these  terrible  accusations,  like  a  sweet  mor- 
sel, under  his  tongue,  and,  at  every  repetition  of  them,  sharp- 
ened the  point  of  his  pen,  that  he  might  give  them  irresisti- 
ble aind  convincing  force.  He  made  his  real  object,  how- 
ever, more  apparent  as  he  proceeded ;  and,  in  the  midst  of 
an  enumeration  of  "Protestant  prejudices,"  which  he  felt  it 


('*)  "Protestantism  and  Infidelity," by  Weninger,  p.  11. 

(")  "Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent,"  pp.  73,  74. 

(")  "  Protestantism  and  Infidelity,"  by  Weninger,  p.  85. 

(>«)  Ihid.,  p.  90.  C')  Ibid.,  p.  93.  (=")  Ihid.,  p.  96. 

CO  Ibid.,  p.  102.  (")  Ibid.,  p.  150.  C^)  Ibid.,  p.  213. 

(«*)  Ibid. ,  p.  252.  C)  Ibid. ,  p.  278. 


116  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

his  duty  to  overcome,  he  expressed  his  pent-up  feelings  in 
these  words : 

"  One  of  the  most  glorious  enterprises  for  the  Catholic 
Church  to  engage  in  at  this  day  is  the  conversion  of  the 
United  States  to  the  Catholic  faith. ''^  i^^) 

Now,  if  the  consummation  of  this  object  were  sought  for 
in  the  field  of  fair  discussion,  without  any  dogmatic  assump- 
tion of  superiority  on  the  part  of  either  adversary,  each  re- 
maining the  equal  of  the  other,  according  to  the  spirit  of 
our  institutions,  all  Protestant  Christians  would,  in  true  char- 
ity, hail  Roman  Catholicism  as  a  desirable  auxiliary  in  the 
work  and  duty  of  evangelizing,  not  merely  the  United  States!, 
but  the  world.  The  Roman  Catholic  Church,  stripped  of 
the  influence  of  Jesuitism  and  brought  back  to  its  early  pu- 
rity, would  possess  the  capacity  to  perform  a  most  glorious 
part  in  such  an  achievement.  But  no  such  liberal  idea  as 
this  finds  any  place  in  the  mind  of  this  author,  or  of  any 
other  Jesuit,  or  of  any  of  those  who  submit  to  their  dicta- 
tion. From  such  men  liberalism  finds  no  quarter.  They 
exhibit  nothing  higher  or  nobler  than  that  supercilious  air 
of  imagined  superiority,  which  roots  out  every  generous  fac- 
ulty of  the  mind,  and  leaves  its  possessor  an  object  of  min- 
gled pity  and  contempt.  Thus  impressed,  and  fearing  that 
he  would  fail  in  rallying  the  militia  of  the  Church  to  the  sup- 
port of  the  papacy  if  he  did  not  speak  plainly  in  defense  of 
the  temporal  sovereignty  of  the  pope  over  the  whole  world, 
this  infatuated  Jesuit  thus  declares : 

"In  the  ceremonies  for  the  installation  of  a  new  pope,  he 
is  addressed  in  these  words :  *  Noveris  te  urbis  et  orbis  con- 
stitutum  esse  rectorum.  Remember  that  thou  art  placed  on 
the  throne  of  Peter  as  the  ruler  of  Borne  and  the  world.'' "(") 

In  order,  however,  to  make  his  Roman  Catholic  readers 
familiar  with  the  manner  in  which  the  pope  would  rule  the 
world,  when  the  power  to  do  so  was  secured  to  him,  he  had, 
a  little  while  before,  addressed  a  threat  of  vengeance  to  the 
Protestants  of  the  United  States,  in  order  that  they  might 
experience  a  wholesome  dread  of  their  approaching  doom  in 


O  "Protestantism  and  Infidelity,"  by  Weninger,  p.  270. 
(")  Ibid.,  p.  259. 


THREATS  OF  PERSECUTION.  117 

time  to  avoid  it  by  penitence  and  submission.  After  defend- 
ing the  Roman  Inquisition  as  a  necessary  part  of  ecclesias- 
tical organization,  and  coupling  his  reference  to  it  with  the 
Protestant  complaint  of  the  unmerited  persecution  of  Gali- 
leo, he  says : 

"  Protestants  would  do  better  never  to  mention  Galileo,  in 
order  that  we  may  not^  in  our  turn,  he  forced  to  inquire  into 
their  own  excesses  of  religious  Aa^fed"(^®) 

This  is  such  an  exhibition  of  cool  audacity  as  we  seldom 
meet  with.  Here  is  a  foreign  priest,  sheltered  by  our  laws, 
who  clinches  his  fist,  and  shakes  it  in  our  faces,  daring  to  tell 
us  that  we  will  "  do  better "  to  let  the  car  of  the  papacy, 
with  Jesuit  conductors,  roll  unresistingly  over  us ;  for  if  we 
do  not,  we  shall  be  punished,  after  the  manner  of  Galileo,  for 
our  "  excesses  of  relioious  hatred  !"  He  writes  in  admirinsj 
contemplation  of  Roman  ecclesiasticism,  which  recognizes 
external  power  as  necessary  to  a  perfect  plan  of  church  or- 
ganization— the  power  to  coerce  obedience  when  other  means 
are  unavailing,  to  resort  to  fotxe  whenever  the  pope  shall 
decree  its  necessity.  Pope  Pius  IX.  had  already  committed 
himself  to  this  system  of  policy,  in  submitting  to  the  domi- 
nation of  the  Jesuits;  and  they,  in  their  turn,  were  prepar- 
ing the  faithful  for  the  bold  avowals  of  the  Syllabus,  which, 
only  two  years  afterward,  startled  all  the  civilized  nations. 
And  the  time  selected  by  this  author  to  do  his  part  of  this 
work  in  the  United  States  displayed  admirable  sagacity  and 
tact.  When  his  book  made  its  appearance,  our  country  was 
laboring  in  the  travail  of  a  fearful  civil  war.  Immense  ar- 
mies were  in  the  field,  marshaled  against  each  other  in  the 
most  deadly  conflict.  It  seemed  doubtful  which  of  the  con- 
tending parties  would  win  the  final  victory — whether  the 
defenders  of  the  Government  would  wun  or  lose  it.  The 
doubtful  nature  of  the  contest ;  the  apparent  difference  of 
opinion  in  reference  to  its  result,  even  in  the  States  support- 
ing  the  Union;  and  other  combinations  of  circumstances  too 
recent  to  have  been  forgotten — all  conspired  to  excite  in  the 
minds  of  European  imperialists  the  hope,  and,  possibly,  the 
belief,  that  the  days  of  our  civil  institutions  were  numbered, 

(^®)  "Protestantism  and  Infidelity,"  by  Weninger,  p.  249. 


118  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

and  could  not  be  lengthened  out  much  longer.  Foremost 
among  these  royalists  was  "  the  favorite  son  of  the  Church  " 
— the  corrupt  and  false-hearted  Emperor  of  the  French — 
who,  with  one  hand,  ruled  his  subjects  with  unmitigated 
severity ;  while,  with  the  other,  he  held  the  pope  upon  his 
temporal  throne,  from  which,  but  for  him,  he  would  have 
been  hurled  by  the  outraged  Italians  after  the  battle  of  Sol- 
ferino.  With  this  perfidious  monarch,  it  was  a  fixed  habit 
to  profess  one  thing,  while  doing,  or  trying  to  do,  another. 
At  the  moment  he  announced  that  "the  empire  is  peace," 
he  was  engaged  in  corrupting  schemes  designed  to  give  per- 
petuity to  absolutism.  With  him  and  the  pope  the  thought 
was  a  common  one  that  kings  govern  by  divine  right,  and, 
therefore,  that  the  choice  of  their  own  mode  of  civil  govern- 
ment by  the  people  is  in  violation  of  God's  law.  Neither  of 
them  stopped  to  inquire  what  popular  right  would  be  tram- 
pled down  by  the  re-establishment  of  this  principle  among 
those  who  had  resisted  and  repudiated  it ;  nor  how  much  it 
would  block  up  the  way  in  which  the  car  of  progress  was  so 
triumphantly  moving.  These  were  matters  they  considered 
fit  only  for  revolutionists  and  heretics,  who,  for  daring  to  as- 
sert the  right  of  mankind  to  self-government,  were  denounced 
as  Protestants  and  infidels,  and  cut  off,  by  bulls  of  excommu- 
nication, from  all  the  sacraments  and  protection  of  the  Church. 
This  unity  of  purpose  and  principle  on  the  part  of  Napoleon 
and  the  pope  led,  without  diflSculty,  to  the  adoption  of  a 
common  plan  of  operations,  which  required  no  formal  con- 
cordat to  define  its  terms,  whereby  it  was  intended  to  secure 
the  triumph  of  imperialism,  and  to  plant  the  flag  of  the  '"''Lat- 
in race''''  in  every  nation  of  the  earth,  especially  in  the  United 
States,  where,  under  the  tolerance  of  Protestantism,  Jesuit- 
ism was  growing  bolder  every  day.  The  plans  of  operation 
were,  doubtless,  well  understood  by  the  army  of  the  hie- 
rarchy, which  was  first  put  in  motion.  They  constituted  the 
skirmish-line,  the  advance-guard,  of  the  strong  columns  held 
in  reserve.  The  special  duty  assigned  them  was  akin  to 
that  performed  by  this  Jesuit  author  of  "  Protestantism  and 
Infidelity"  —  the  arraignment  of  Protestantism  as  a  fraud 
and  a  cheat,  as  infidelity  and  heresy,  and,  therefore,  with  the 
curse  of  God  r<isting  upon  it — and  thus  to  prepare  the  Ro- 


EFFORTS  TO  SUBJUGATE  THE  UNITED  STATES.      119 

man  Catholic  mind  throughout  the  world  for  that  fatal  blow 
which  the  imperial  conspirators  expected  to  strike.  To  Na- 
poleon III.  was  assigned  the  more  dangerous  and  exposed, 
but  not  the  more  active,  duty  of  augmenting  the  strength  of 
despotism  when  the  fall  of  our  institutions  should  clear  the 
chief  obstruction  out  of  the  way.  Accordingly,  he  intrigued 
with  England  and  Spain  to  unite  their  armies  with  that  of 
France,  and  send  the  combined  force  to  Mexico,  under  the 
false  pretense  of  protecting  their  mutual  pecuniary  interests, 
but  with  the  real  design,  as  subsequent  events  abundantly 
proved,  of  subjugating  that  country,  already  Roman  Catho- 
lic, of  placing  its  crown  upon  the  head  of  an  alien  prince, 
and  thus  to  prepare,  upon  the  fall  of  our  Government,  to 
move  up  the  papal  armies  from  Mexico  to  the  United  States, 
and  turn  over  this  country  to  the  "  Latin  race,"  so  that  Rome 
should  again  become  "  the  mistress  of  the  world,"  and  its 
pope-king  the  ruler  over  the  whole  earth  /{^^)  The  enterprise 
was  of  grand  proportions ;  but  it  so  happens  that  God  dis- 
poses of  the  schemes  of  men  as  is  most  suited  to  his  own 
providential  government.  Protestant  England,  discovering 
how  she  had  been  deceived  and  duped  by  the  intrigue,  with- 
drew her  army  in  disgust.  Roman  Catholic  Spain,  becoming 
sensible  of  the  inferiority  into  which  the  papacy  had  reduced 
her,  and  beginning  to  feel  newly  invigorated  by  the  princi- 

C^^)  What  Pius  IX.  expected  to  gain  for  the  papacy  will  be  seen  by  a  let- 
ter, subsequently  written  by  him  to  Maximilian,  instructing  him  as  to  his 
duty.     He  said : 

"  Your  majesty  is  well  aware  that,  in  order  effectually  to  repair  the  evils 
occasioned  by  the  revolution,  and  to  bring  back  as  soon  as  possible  happy 
days  for  the  Church,  the  Catholic  religion  must,  above  all  things,  continue  to 
be  the  glory  and  the  main-stay  of  the  Mexican  nation,  to  the  exclusion  of  ev- 
ery other  dissenting  worship;  that  the  bishops  must  be  perfectly  free  in  the 
exercise  of  their  pastoral  ministry  ;  that  the  religious  orders  should  be  re-es- 
tablished, or  reorganized,  conformably  with  the  instructions  and  the  powers 
which  we  have  given ;  that  the  patrimony  of  the  Church,  and  the  rights 
which  attach  to  it,  may  be  maintained  and  protected  ;  that  no  person  may  ob- 
tain the  faculty  of  teaching  and  publishing  false  and  subversive  tenets;  that 
instruction,  whether  public  or  private,  should  be  directed  and  watched  over 
by  the  ecclesiastical  authority ;  and  that,  in  short,  the  chains  may  be  broken 
which,  up  to  the  present  time,  have  held  down  the  Church  in  a  state  of  de- 
pendence, and  subject  to  the  arbitrary  rule  of  the  civil  government." — Apple- 
tons' Annual  Cyclopo'dui,  186i),  y>.  74:9. 


120  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

pies  which  prevail  among  the  Protestant  nations,  followed 
the  example  of  England,  expelled  her  profligate  Roman  Cath- 
olic queen,  and  advanced  herself  so  far  toward  Protestant- 
ism as  to  establish  freedom  of  religious  thought,  in  the  face 
of  papal  remonstrances  and  protests.  Napoleon,  left  alone, 
floundered  for  a  while  like  a  drowning  man.  He  sufiered 
poor  Maximilian,  his  royal  dupe,  to  be  cut  ofl"  in  his  young 
manhood,  and  caused  his  beautiful  wife  to  pine  away  in  insan- 
ity; and  at  last  his  army  was  driven  out  of  Mexico,  he  him- 
self was  compelled  to  flee  from  France,  his  sword  was  bro- 
ken, his  diadem  lost,  and  his  name  held  in  such  universal  ex- 
ecration by  the  French  people  that  he  dared  not,  for  months 
before  his  death,  leave  his  Protestant  asylum  to  brave  their 
indignation.  Even  the  proud  and  gallant  nation  over  which 
he  ruled  was  betrayed  into  the  burial  of  its  national  glory  in 
a  grave  dug  by  a  Protestant  rival.  The  Latin  race,  so  late- 
ly entering,  with  high  hopes,  upon  the  conquest  of  the  world, 
was  humbled  and  humiliated  before  its  Teutonic  enemy. 
The  hingly  crown  has  been  snatched  from  the  brow  of  the 
pope  by  Roman  Catholic  hands,  and  he  is  now  sending  forth 
his  piteous  clamors  for  revenge,  hoping  to  arrest  the  march 
of  the  world's  progress  by  rousing  up  some  modern  "  Peter 
the  Hermit,"  who  will  lead  another  crusade  and  sacrifice 
millions  more  of  human  lives  to  win  his  royalty  again.  And 
the  Protestant  institutions  of  the  United  States  yet  exist. 
The  foundation-stones  remain  solidly  planted.  The  flag  of 
the  nation  floats  over  all  its  territory.  No  star  is  missing 
from  its  folds.  Does  it  not  seem  that  God  is  on  our  side  ? 
—  that,  if  our  Protestantism  is  infidelity  and  heresy,  and 
Roman  Catholicism  the  only  true  religion,  instead  of  Prot- 
estantism advancing  and  the  papacy  going  down  into  the 
grave,  the  very  reverse  order  of  things  would  have  trans- 
pired? With  these  evidences  of  Providential  guardianship, 
we  may  confidently  hope  for  protection  from  papal  and  im- 
perial aggression,  unless  we  shall  become  indifferent  to  our 
destiny,  forget  our  manhood,  and  fail  in  our  duty  to  the  in- 
stitutions with  which  we  have  been  blessed. 

But  although  these  enemies  of  our  civil  institutions  have 
been  thus  discomfited,  the  pope  is  not  disposed  to  abandon 
the  contest.     He  struggles  on  like  a  brave  man.     Notwith- 


DEADLY  CONFLICT  WITH  PROTESTANTISM.         121 

standing  he  is  deprived  of  the  support  of  such  princely  allies 
as  gave  victory  to  so  many  of  his  predecessors,  he  carries  on 
the  war  with  his  ecclesiastical  troops,  upon  whose  devotion 
and  blind  submission  he  knows  he  can  always  rely,  because 
they  must  become  the  sharers  with  him  in  whatsoever  tem- 
poral power  their  combined  exertions  may  win.  At  his 
summons  of  them  by  the  Encyclical  and  Syllabus,  he  an- 
nounced the  extent  to  which  he  expected  them  to  go  in  op- 
posing all  liberalism  and  progress;  and  the  sentiments  and 
opinions  thus  avowed  by  him  have  entered  into  all  the  lit- 
erature of  the  hierarchy,  and  compose  one  of  its  leading 
and  most  important  features.  The  war  carried  on  by  this 
means  is  not  the  less  dangerous  because  it  is  covert  and  in- 
sidious. 

The  book  from  which  the  last  quotations  were  made  was 
written  before  the  Encyclical  and  Syllabus,  and  when  the 
French  army  was  in  Mexico,  with  the  Roman  Catholic  priest- 
hood of  that  country  in  full  concert  with  it.  But  the  author 
evidently  considered  that  he  had  thereby  but  partly  per- 
formed his  task.  Consequently,  he  has  since  made  another 
effort  to  instruct  the  Roman  Catholic  conscience  in  reference 
to  the  duty  of  obedience  to  the  pope,  who  is  now  expected 
to  achieve  by  ecclesiasticism  what  Napoleon  could  not  win 
by  arms.  His  first  work  should  be  considered  as  merely  a 
preface  to  the  last,  the  two  being  required  to  fully  develop 
the  papal  and  imperial  system.  In  1869,  after  the  Ency- 
clical and  Syllabus,  and  in  preparation  for  the  Ecumenical 
Council,  he  published  his  second  book,  with  this  imposing 
title,"  On  the  Apostolic  and  Infallible  Authority  of  the  Pope, 
when  teaching  the  Faithful,  and  on  his  Relation  to  a  General 
Council."  As  a  Jesuit,  he  could  not,  of  course,  do  otherwise 
than  assert  the  infallibility  of  the  pope  ;  and  hence  there  are 
scattered  about,  at  numerous  places  throughout  his  book, 
and  in  the  midst  of  flagrant  perversions  of  history,  such 
avowals  of  his  object  as  leave  no  doubt  about  it.  In  the  in- 
troduction he  characterizes  Protestantism  and  Roman  Ca- 
tholicism as  "  the  armies  of  truth  and  error ^"^  and  says  that 
these  armies  "  are  drawn  up  in  the  sight  of  the  whole  world, 
and  prepared  to  meet  in  a  decisive  combat^  for  the  very  life 
of  Christianity.     It  is  time  to  define  our  position  more  accu- 


122  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

rately,  and  to  let  our  enemies  feel  our  strength,  and  the  utter 
impossibility  of  engaging  us  in  ayiy  compromise.'''' {^°) 

These  are  brave  words,  bravely  delivered.  They  are  like 
the  utterances  of  one  who  feels  that  his  feet  rest  upon  solid 
ground,  and  who  knows  the  power  in  reserve  behind  him. 
Designed,  primarily,  to  stimulate  the  courage  of  those  to 
whom  they  were  specially  addressed,  it  may  have  been 
hoped,  at  the  same  time,  that  some  timid  Protestants  might 
be  startled  by  them.  But  for  fear  of  failure  in  the  first  of 
these  objects,  he  proceeds,  soon  after,  to  instruct  the  faithful 
upon  the  duty  of  obedience.     He  says  : 

"The  pope  teaches  and  defines,  without  previously  con- 
voking a  council,  or  asking  the  formal  consent  of  any  body; 
and  the  clergy  of  every  order,  as  well  as  laymen  of  every  con- 
dition, are  obliged  to  confokm,  and  do  conform,  precisely 
as  Pius  IX.,  in  his  capacity  of  head  of  the  Church,  so  teaches 
and  defines.''^') 

One,  and  far  the  most  important,  of  his  methods  of  estab- 
lishing this  papal  sovereignty,  is  by  showing  what  the  popes 
themselves  have  said  and  done  in  reference  to  it.  On  the 
assumed  ground  of  their  infallibility  and  incapacity  to  err, 
he  lays  down  the  foregoing  as  the  law  of  the  Church,  to 
which  every  Roman  Catholic  is  "  obliged  to  conform,"  no 
matter  what  shall  be  required  of  him,  under  the  penalty  of 
excommunication  and  eternal  punishment.  He  looks  no  far- 
ther than  Rome,  and  looks  there  for  every  thing.  With  him, 
God  has  established  no  other  mode  of  making  his  will  known 
to  mankind  than  through  the  mouth  of  the  pope.  When  he 
speaks,  God  speaks.  And  when  he  comes  to  notice  the  deal- 
ings of  the  popes  with  emperors,  kings,  and  princes — that  is, 
with  governments  foreign  to  the  papal  states — he  gives 
prominence  only  to  such  examples  as  tend  to  show  their  su- 
premacy over  mankind  ;  cautiously  passing  by  such  as  show 
its  frequent  and  spirited  denial.  All  these  examples  he  re- 
gards as  having  entered  into,  and  as  now  constituting,  an  es- 
sential part  of  the  law  of  the  Church,  which  is  to  be  observed, 
in   our  day,  with  implicit  obedience.     They  are  so  nearly 


('")  "The  Apostolical  and  Infallible  Authority  of  the  Pope,"  etc.,  by  We- 
ninger,  p.  11.  (^^) /6i£/.,  p.  14. 


ROYAL  EXAMPLES  OF  SUBMISSION  COMMENDED.    123 

alike  that  a  few  of  them  will  enable  us  to  understand  suffi- 
ciently the  nature  and  foundation  of  this  extraordinary  claim 
of  authority,  to  which  we  are  so  kindly  invited  to  become 
subject. 

Pope  Boniface  IV.  wrote  to  King  Athelbert  of  England 
as  follows: 

"If  any  king  succeeding,  or  any  bishop,  clergyman,  or 
laic,  shall  essay  to  infringe  the  decrees  of  the  popes,  he 
should  incur  the  anathema  of  Peter  and  of  all  his  succes- 
sors."(") 

Louis  the  Pious,  son  of  Charlemagne,  submitted  the  divis- 
ion of  his  empire  to  the  confirmation  of  the  pope ;  and,  says 
this  author,  "  from  that  time  it  became  the  usage  and  prac- 
tice that  the  Franco-Roman  and  German  emperors  became 
such  only  with  the  consent  of  the  Roman  pontiffs  and  on  be- 
ing crowned  by  him.  Nor  was  this  the  case  with  the  em- 
perors of  the  West  alone,  for  the  kings  of  England,  Poland, 
Hungary,  Croatia,  Sweden,  and  Denmark  loved  to  receive 
their  crowns  at  his  hands,  and  to  place  their  dominions  un- 
der the  especial  guarayitee  and  protection  of  the  Holy  See^i^^) 

Somebody  has  said  that  the  doctrine  of  the  common-law 
lawyers,  that  precedent  makes  the  law,  is  a  very  danger- 
ous one,  because,  by  means  of  it,  error  may  often  obtain 
sanction.  This  is  undoubtedl}^  the  case  with  these  papal 
precedents ;  for  if  they  are  to  be  recognized  now  as  confer- 
ring rights  which  are  not  to  be  called  in  question,  then  all 
dispute  is  at  an  end,  for  "  Rome  has  spoken !"  It  is  alone 
by  these  precedents  that  this  comprehensive  authority  of 
the  popes  is  maintained,  and  it  is  for  this  purpose  alone  that 
these  references  are  made  by  this  author.  True,  he  avoids 
any  direct  discussion  of  "the  question  oi political  right, ^"^ 
yet  takes  care  to  let  the  papal  followers  understand  that 
these  examples  prove  it  also  to  belong  to  the  pope,  because, 
in  the  instances  cited,  all  "  the  peoples  and  princes  "  regard- 
ed him  "  as  the  vicar  of  Christ  and  the  supreme  arbiter  of  all 
on  earth,  according  to  the  saying,  *  He  who  is  competent  to 
the  greater  is  also  competent  to  the  less;'"(^*)  that  is,  he 

^32^  "The  Apostolical  and  Infallible  Authority  of  the  Pope,"  etc. ,  by  We- 
ninger,  p.  226.  O  Ibid.,  pp.  228,  229.  Q')  Ibid.,  p.  229. 


124  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWEK. 

who  derives  his  right  to  govern  in  spiritual  things  directly 
from  God,  must  govern  also  in  temporal  things,  because  the 
spiritual  are  greater  and  higher  than  the  temporal.  He 
shows  this  to  be  his  meaning  by  telling  us  what  Count  de 
Maistre  teaches  on  this  subject  in  his  "  Essai  sur  les  Moeurs," 
where  he  says  that  all  the  Christian  princes  considered  the 
pope  "^o  he  a  judge  between  them  avid  their  people  f  and  also 
by  quoting,  with  approbation,  what  the  same  author  says  in 
his  "  Essai  sur  I'Histoire  Generale,"  as  follows : 

"The  interests  of  mankind  demand  a  bridle  by  which 
princes  may  be  restrained  and  the  people  saved.  This  bri- 
dle might  by  common  consent  be  placed  in  the  hands  of  the 
Roman  pontiff.  Such  a  high-priest,  mingling  in  worldly  con- 
flicts only  to  silence  them,  admonishing  alike  the  sovereign 
and  his  people  of  their  duties,  condemning  their  crimes,  and 
visiting  his  excommunication  on  great  wrongs,  would  be 
looked  upon  as  the  living  representative  and  likeness  of  God 
upon  the  earthyi^") 

In  support  of  this  theory  of  the  pope's  temporal  right  to 
exercise  dominion  over  the  world,  so  as  to  mingle  "  in  world- 
ly conflicts,"  and  keep  mankind  to  the  line  "of  their  duties," 
accordingly  as  he  shall  decide  what  is  right  and  what  is 
wrong,  he  also  cites  numerous  instances  to  show  that,  for 
many  years,  emperors  and  kings  recognized  it  in  relation  to 
themselves  and  their  subjects,  and  gloried  in  their  humilia- 
tion. He  gives  special  prominence  to  the  case  of  Henry  II. 
of  England,  who  was  "  obliged  "  to  prostrate  himself  before 
the  pontifical  throne,  and  submit  to  the  decrees  of  the  pope. 
And  also  to  that  of  Frederick  Barbarossa,  who  was  forced 
"  by  the  heavy  hand  of  God  to  bow  his  head  and  sue  for 
pardon. "(^®)  And  to  enforce  his  views  still  more  strongly, 
as  well  as  to  give  the  utmost  influence  to  the  precedents  by 
which  he  endeavors  to  establish  the  temporal  authority  of 
the  pope,  he  quotes  from  an  address  to  him  by  the  "  Queen 
mother  of  Richard  the  Lion-hearted,"  wherein  she  said  : 

"  Did  not  tlie  Lord  coniev  p^lenitude  of  power  on  Peter,  and 
on  you  through  him  ?     Blessed  be  the  Lord  who  gave  such 

Q^)  "The  Apostolical  and  Infallible  Authority  of  the  Pope,"  etc.,  by  We- 
ninger,  p.  230.  (3«)  Ihid.,  pp.  235,  23G. 


THE  CROSS  SUPERIOR  TO  THE  SWORD.  125 

power  to  men,  that  no  hing^  no  emperor^  no  diike  can  icith- 
draio  himself  from  its  jurisdiction.  The  prince  of  the  apostles 
still  governs  in  his  see,  and  a  judicial  power  is  constituted 
in  our  midst.  Draw^  then^  the  sword  of  Peter,  The  Cross  of 
Christ  takes  precedence  of  the  Imperial  Eagles^  and  the  Sword 
of  Peter  goes  before  that  of  Co7istantine.^\^'') 

He  also  considers  it  important  to  show  that  this  doctrine, 
so  earnestly  recommended  for  adoption  in  this  country,  and 
by  which  all  the  world  would  be  necessarily  and  unavoida- 
bly placed  under  the  rule  of  the  papacy,  had  the  sanction  of 
other  emperors  and  kings,  including  Philip  and  Frederick  II., 
of  Germany ;  Philip  II.,  St.  Louis,  Louis  XL,  Charles  VIIL, 
Henry  IV.,  Louis  XIII.,  and  Louis  XIV.,  of  France ;  and  Hen- 
ry VIL,  Henry  VIIL,  and  Mary,  of  England. ('')  How  faith- 
fully  he  follows  the  course  of  a  lawyer  in  a  common -law 
court,  who  lays  down  his  premises  and  supports  them  by 
showing  that  numerous  judges  have  made  decisions  of  the 
like  character.  And  yet  it  seems  not  to  have  occurred  to 
him  that  he  is  attempting  a  task  of  difficult  achievement; 
that  is,  to  make  the  people  of  the  United  States,  including 
numbers  of  Roman  Catholics,  believe  that  imperialism,  even 
in  its  mildest  form,  is  preferable  to  the  political  liberty  they 
now  enjoy.  In  every  instance  he  has  referred  to,  including 
popes,  emperors,  kings,  and  princes,  the  parties  were  united 
in  their  exertions  to  establish  the  "  divine  right "  of  kings  to 
rule  the  world,  in  opposition  to  the  right  of  the  people  to 
govern  themselves,  and  solely  with  the  selfish  motive  of  con- 
tinuing their  own  power.  None  of  them  had  the  slightest 
regard  for  the  rights  of  the  people,  and  all  supposed,  as  the 
defenders  of  the  papacy  now  do,  that  the  people  were  made 
to  be  governed,  not  to  govern,  and  that  they  required,  as  Dr. 
Brownson  says,  a  master/  They  were  all  personally  inter- 
ested in  doing  exactly  what  they  did,  in  order  to  keep  their 
crowns  safely  upon  their  heads ;  and,  considered  unitedly, 
they  were  conspirators  against  human  freedom.  If  now  we 
are  to  recognize  what  they  did  and  said,  as  establishing  a  law 
for  our  government,  we  might,  with  like  propriety  and  by 


(")  "The  Apostolical  and  Infallible  Authority  of  the  Pope,"  etc.,  by  We- 
ningev,  p.  236.  O  Ibid.,  pp.  237-245. 


126  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

the  same  process  of  reasoning,  justify  the  most  abominable 
and  demoralizing  vices,  by  showing,  what  it  would  be  easy 
to  show,  that  they  were  all,  including  some  of  the  popes, 
adepts  in  almost  every  form  of  corruption.  At  the  times 
when  these  examples  were  set,  the  bulk  of  the  European  peo- 
ple were  in  a  state  of  profound  ignorance,  and  it  was  essen- 
tial to  the ''divine  right"  of  absolutism  that  they  should  be 
kept  so;  for,  in  their  ignorance,  they  were  taught  by  ambi- 
tious, cunning,  and  corrupt  priests  to  believe  that  the  pope 
was  equal  to  God.  While  this  delusion  existed,  they  dared 
not  resist  a  king  or  prince,  however  tyrannical,  who  had  the 
pope's  indorsement ;  for  that  would  have  been  considered  a 
violation  of  God's  commands,  and  punished  by  excommuni- 
cation and  anathema.  Hence,  these  kings  and  princes  were 
careful  to  obtain  this  indorsement,  and  the  popes  were  equal- 
ly careful  to  see  that  the  light  of  intelligence  was  shut  out 
from  the  popular  mind,  so  that,  by  a  continuance  of  the  delu- 
sion, they  could  share  between  themselves  the  government 
of  the  whole  civilized  world.  They  must  be  bold  and  pre- 
sumptuous men  who  ask  us,  as  these  Jesuit  missionaries  do, 
to  exchange  the  present  condition  of  our  affairs  for  that  they 
so  fondly  picture — to  undo  what  the  people,  acting  for  them- 
selves, have  so  nobly  done  in  resistance  to  misgovernment 
and  tyranny,  and  plunge,  in  blind  submission,  and  at  a  sin- 
gle bound,  back  again  into  mediaeval  times. 

When  Luther,  at  the  Diet  of  Worms,  demanded  to  debate 
his  thesis  with  the  emissaries  of  the  pope,  he  struck  a  ter- 
rible blow  at  the  doctrine  of  passive  obedience ;  which  it  is 
now  sought,  with  so  much  earnestness,  to  revive.  Whatever 
may  have  been  his  religious  belief — and  no  Protestants  of 
this  day  are  responsible  for  it  —  he  then  became  the  cham- 
pion of  free  thought,  and,  as  such,  courageously  planted  him- 
self on  the  side  of  the  people,  and  between  them  and  their 
oppressors.  On  that  simple  basis,  he  laid  the  foundation 
upon  which  a  magnificent  fabric  has  since  been  reared,  and 
he  who  now  attempts  to  pull  it  down  should  be  treated  as  a 
public  enemy  by  all  free  people.  By  his  example,  he  taught 
the  people  to  think,  and  reason,  and  investigate  for  them- 
selves. The  scales  fell  gradually  from  their  eyes,  and  they 
came  to  realize  the  character  and  nature  of  the  popish  and 


PAPAL  OPPOSITION  TO  POPULAR  GOVERNMENT.     127 

princely  tricks  by  which  they  had  been  cheated  out  of  their 
liberty;  and  at  last  roused  themselves  up  into  a  vigorous 
and  robust  manhood.  They  snapped  asunder  the  chains  of 
their  servitude,  and  asserted,  in  the  face  of  their  rulers,  those 
great  liberties  which  were  never  firmly  established  as  legal 
rights  until  the  Government  of  the  United  States  was  formed, 
and  Protestantism  was  thereby  enabled  to  achieve  a  full  de- 
velopment. Protestantism  has,  therefore,  become  the  spe- 
cial guardian  of  these  liberties ;  while  the  papacy  remains, 
as  ever,  their  deadly  and  malignant  foe.  The  former  clings 
to  them  with  undiminished  affection  ;  the  latter  aims  at  them 
its  most  deadly  blows.  The  Roman  Catholic  hierarchy  of 
the  United  States  join  in  with  this  insatiate  hostility,  and 
are  leaving  no  stone  unturned  in  their  efforts  to  persuade 
their  adherents  to  return  to  the  old  order  of  things.  Their 
greatest  and  strongest  argument  is  that  repeated  by  Dr. 
Weninger — because  these  iniquitous  compacts  between  popes 
and  kings,  in  past  centuries,  have  made  it  the  law  of  the  Ro- 
man Catholic  Church  that  every  human  being  should  be 
governed  hy^'the  King  of  Rome,'''  as  God's  representative; 
therefore,  the  modern  and  progressive  idea  that  the  people 
shall  make  their  own  governments  and  laws  is  infidelity  and 
heresy,  and  deserves  the  anathema  of  the  Church  and  the 
curse  of  God  !  And  presuming  upon  either  the  submissive- 
ness  or  ignorance,  or  both,  of  those  who  are  called  "  the  faith- 
ful," they  assert  their  authority  to  command  in  the  name  of 
the  pope,  with  a  supercilious  air  which  can  only  arise  from 
an  imagined  superiority  to  the  remainder  of  mankind.  Dr. 
Weninger  is  a  distinguished  and  conspicuous  member  of  this 
class,  and,  with  seeming  assurance  of  obedience,  he  exclaims  : 

"  Yes,  the  Catholic  world  at  large,  without  any  difference 
of  nationality ,  hemisphere,  or  zone,  acknowledges  also  in  our 
times,  by  an  interior  conviction  of  faith,  the  apostolic  see  as 
the  highest  tribunal  on  earth  in  matters  of  faith,  and  the 
Roman  pontiff  to  be  the  infallible  teacher  of  the  faithful 
peoples  on  the  globc'^"^) 

It  can  not  fail  to  arrest  attention  that,  in  whatsoever  mode 


C)  "  The  Apostolical  and  Infallible  Authority  of  the  Pope,"  etc.,  by  We- 
ninger, p.  247. 


128  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

the  writers  of  this  class  speak  of  the  pope,  they  all  reach  the 
same  result — the  omnipotent  power  of  the  papacy,  and  its 
absolute  incapacity  to  do  any  thing  wrong.  When  they 
speak  of  "  matters  of  faith,"  as  this  author  does,  they  intend 
to  include  the  temporalities  of  government,  and  such  civil 
and  political  rights  as  American  Protestantism  has  guaran- 
teed. This  has  already  partially  appeared,  but  it  will  be 
seen  more  undeniably  hereafter.  It  has  also  been  demon- 
strated that  the  papacy  teaches  that  Protestantism  is  her- 
esy and  infidelity,  no  religion  at  all,  a  mockery  of  God ;  and, 
therefore,  this  Jesuit  author  teaches  that  all  Roman  Cath- 
olics are  bound,  by  duty  to  "  the  highest  tribunal  on  earth," 
to  exterminate  it,  and  to  plant  Roman  Catholicism  in  its 
place ;  so  that  the  pope,  as  the  only  "  infallible  teacher," 
shall  prescribe  the  laws  and  institutions  we  are  to  obey,  and 
appoint  his  ecclesiastical  ofiicers  and  agents  to  see  that  they 
are  executed,  to  reward  the  faithful  and  punish  the  refrac- 
tory and  disobedient. 

Why  are  books  containing  these  and  other  kindred  teach- 
ings published  and  circulated  in  the  United  States  ?  Why 
is  it  necessary  to  fix  such  principles  in  the  minds  of  the  Ro- 
man Catholic  part  of  our  population  ?  What  have  they,  as 
citizens  of  the  United  States,  to  do  with  such  royal  exam- 
ples as  these  books  set  before  them  ?  with  the  claims  of  au- 
thority asserted,  centuries  ago,  by  emperors,  kings,  princes, 
and  popes  ?  Protestantism  tried  hard  to  exist  among  these 
tyrants,  but  could  not,  except  in  a  modified  and  imperfect 
form,  because  it  could  not  reach  its  consummation  where 
political  bondage  existed ;  and  these  imperial  despots  could, 
none  of  them,  live  in  the  atmosphere  of  freedom.  Each  re- 
quired congenial  nourishment  suited  to  its  nature  ;  Protest- 
antism demanding  liberty,  and  imperialism  bondage.  And, 
therefore.  Protestantism  sought  a  new  world,  and  left  the 
absolutism  of  popes  and  kings  in  possession  of  the  old,  to 
oppress,  persecute,  and  tyrannize,  under  the  plea  of  "  divine 
right."  It  occupied  a  field  which  Providence  had  preserved 
for  it,  wherein  it  could  work  out  its  own  results  without 
fear  of  a  rival.  But  now,  when  in  the  full  tide  of  success- 
ful progress,  it  finds  itself  confronted  by  its  old  enemy,  who 
has  grown  up  here  under  its  protection;  and  who,  just  as 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  JESUS  IN  TtiE  UNITED  STATES.    l29 

imperialism  is  threatened  with  destruction  in  all  Southern 
and  Western  Europe,  is  endeavoring,  with  unbounded  impu- 
dence, to  destroy  it,  at  the  risk  of  an  angry  and  deadly  con- 
flict between  the  principles  of  democracy  and  those  of  mon- 
archy. And  with  no  less  unbounded  effrontery,  it  points  us 
to  the  combinations  of  despots,  to  their  impious  claims  of 
divine  sanction  for  all  the  wrongs  and  outrages  they  have 
inflicted  on  mankind,  and  to  the  approbation  given  them  by 
crowned  popes,  to  prove  that  precedents  thus  furnished  have 
ripened  into  rights  which  the  world  must  recognize  as  sanc- 
tioned of  God,  and  which  have  thereby  become  the  law  for 
the  government  of  mankind.  For  such  a  work  as  this  the 
hierarchy  of  the  United  States  seem  well  and  peculiarly  pre- 
pared by  education  and  inclination.  It  remains  to  be  seen, 
hereafter,  how  many  submissive  followers  they  can  enlist 
under  the  papal  banner,  with  mottoes  like  these  upon  it.  In 
the  mean  time,  those  who  have  the  heritage  of  Protestant- 
ism to  guard  and  defend  should  not  be  unmindful  of  the 
triumphs  it  has  already  won,  the  brilliant  future  lying  before 
it,  if  preserved ;  and  the  ignominious  grave  into  which  it 
must  sink,  if  lost. 
'  ^   9     ■  ■    :-  n    ■■ 


130  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 


CHAPTER  Y. 

The  Pope's  Infallibility  makes  him  a  Domestic  Prince  in  all  Nations. — The 
Popes  never  Exceeded  the  Limits  of  their  Authority. — The  Temporal  Pow- 
er Divinely  Conferred  as  Part  of  the  Spiritual. — The  Pope  to  be  King  ev- 
erywhere.— No  Right  of  Complaint  against  Him. — First  Dogmatic  Consti- 
tution of  the  Late  Council. — Decree  of  the  Pope's  Infallibility. — Archbish- 
op Manning's  Definition  of  It. — It  gives  the  Pope  whatever  Authority  he 
Claims. — It  is  a  Personal  Privilege. — It  confers  Coercive  Power  upon  the 
Pope. — The  Present  Governments  are  Dissolving. — The  Syllabus  alone 
will  save  them. 

It  is  not  probable  that  any  candid  man,  whatever  his  at- 
tachment to  particular  creeds  or  church  organizations,  will 
be  disposed  to  deny  that  the  Roman  Catholic  profession  of 
faith,  even  as  settled  by  the  anti-reform  Council  of  Trent, 
contains  much  that  is  satisfactory  to  the  Christian  mind. 
In  so  far  as  it  lays  down  the  fundamentals  of  Christian  faith, 
it  is  unexceptionable,  even  to  the  most  extreme  and  rigid 
Protestants.  But  when  it  goes  beyond  these  and  gathers 
up  different  dogmas  of  the  post-Nicene  period,  which  have 
been  put  forward  from  time  to  time  for  the  purpose  of  get- 
ting away  from  the  teachings  of  the  apostolic  fathers,  and 
building  up  the  papal  system,  its  defenders  can  not  reasona- 
bly expect  that,  in  this  age,  it  will  escape  the  investigation  of 
Protestant  communities,  compelled,  as  they  now  are,  to  de- 
fend themselves  against  papal  aggression.  But  even  these 
might  have  been  left  to  the  exclusive  domain  of  theology, 
had  not  the  introduction  of  the  new  doctrine  of  the  pope's 
infallibility  exposed  conspicuously  to  the  surface  that  po/^^ 
ical  feature  of  the  papal  system  which,  although  known  to 
have  long  existed,  has  been  both  concealed  and  denied  in 
all  Protestant  countries. 

The  last  chapter  pointed  out  the  extent  and  comprehen- 
siveness of  this  infallibility,  as  it  was  claimed  by  the  Jes- 
uits to  exist,  before  the  decree  of  the  late  Lateran  Council. 
Even  if  the  investigation  of  it  were  to  stop  at  this  point,  it 


DUTY  OF  OBEDIENCE  TO  THE  POPE.  131 

would  sufficiently  appear  to  any  thoughtful  mind  that  it  sets 
up  for  the  pope  full  authority  to  deal  with  the  temporalities 
of  the  world,  to  dictate  the  policy  and  regulate  the  affairs 
of  governments,  and  to  step  in  between  the  citizen  and  the 
civil  institutions  to  which  he  owes  allegiance.  But  the  sub- 
ject is  so  fruitful  of  inquiry,  that  it  would  require  many  vol- 
umes to  exhaust  it,  each  step  making  the  design  more  ap- 
parent. 

A  work  was,  not  long  ago,  republished  and  circulated  in 
the  United  States,  which  is  stamped  with  "  the  approbation 
of  the  Lord  Bishop  of  Beverly,"  in  England,  by  way  of  giving 
it  ecclesiastical  authority.  The  American  hierarchy  mani- 
festly consider  this  book  an  important  auxiliary  in  propaga- 
ting the  true  faith.  It  has  this  imposing  and  attractive  ti- 
tle, "His  Holiness  Pope  Pius  IX.  and  the  Temporal  Rights  of 
the  Holy  See,  as  involving  Religious,  Social,  and  Political  In- 
terests of  the  Whole  World."  The  perusal  of  it  will  not  only 
show  with  what  intense  earnestness  the  cause  of  the  papacy 
is  defended,  but  explain  the  grounds  upon  which  that  de- 
fense is  rested.  Its  avowals  are  so  clearly  and  frankly  made 
as  to  entitle  the  author  to  our  respect  on  account  of  his  can- 
dor, however  much  we  may  disagree  with  and  resist  his  the- 
ory. Not  content  with  treating  of  the  temporal  power  of 
the  pope,  merely  in  its  religious  and  social  aspects,  the  au- 
thor asserts  that  it  is  "most  intimately  connected"  also  with 
the  political  interests  and  affairs  of  mankind.  (')  With  his 
mind  fully  impressed  by  this  idea,  he  declares  that  "  onrjirst 
duty^  however,  is  toward  our  most  holy  Pope  Pius  IX.,  who 
at  present  so  nobly  fills  the  chair  of  St.  Peter. "C')  Accept- 
ing this  proposition  as  true,  he  leaves  us  to  the  logical  infer- 
ence that  we  owe  a  secondary  duty  to  government  and  so- 
ciety, in  all  those  matters  in  which  the  pope  has  the  right 
to  exact  obedience  of  us.  And  to  show  that  he  so  regards 
it,  he  adopts  the  definition  of  papal  supremacy  given  by 
Pope  Paul  YIL,  in  1806,  when,  in  answer  to  a  summons  by 
Napoleon  I.  to  surrender  the  political  government  of  Rome, 

Q)  "  His  Holiness  Pope  Pius  IX.,"  etc.  By  M.  I.  Rhodes,  p.  11,  This 
book  is  published  by  D.  and  I.  Sadlier  &  Co.,  New  York,  <ind  is  deemed  of  so 
much  importance  that  it  has  also  been  published  in  Boston  and  Montreal. 

O  Ibid, 


132  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

he  said  :  "It  is  not  our  will,  it  is  the  will  of  God,  whose  place 
we  occupy  on  earthri^)  And  thus  the  example  of  this  pope, 
who  blasphemously  claimed  equality  with  God  and  put  him- 
self in  his  place  on  earth,  furnishes  this  author  with  apology 
for  maintaining  "  it  to  be  the  general  duty  of  all  Catholics, 
whatever  their  country  may  5e,"  and  "  of  all  men,  if  they  did 
but  know  it,  to  protect  the  rights  of  the  Holy  See;"(*)  in- 
cluding, of  course,  his  temporal  and  political  rights ;  that  is, 
his  rights  as  a  sovereign.  Anticipating  that,  possibly,  this 
idea  of  allegiance  to  a  foreign  prince  might  excite  in  the 
minds  of  some  honest  people  the  apprehension  of  treachery 
and  bad  faith  toward  their  governments,  especially  in  Prot- 
estant countries,  he  endeavors  to  quiet  all  their  scruples  of 
conscience  by  this  artful  and  insidious  argument : 

"  Suppose  it  be  said, '  I  acknowledge  the  spiritual  authori- 
ty of  the  Holy  Father ;  but  why  am  I,  an  Englishman  [or 
American,  we  may  add],  to  come  forward  in  2^  political  way, 
and  use  all  my  exertions  to  protect  the  temporal  rights  of  a 
foreign  prince  T  My  answer  at  once  is  plain.  The  pope 
is  not  a  foreign  prince  to  any  Christian^  to  any  human  he- 

w-"(') 

The  reader  should  not  pass  this  by  too  quickly ;  it  is  wor- 
thy of  much  reflection.  The  last  proposition  is  stated  nega- 
tively, but  it  has  an  affirmative  meaning;  which  is,  that  the' 
pope  \s  pri?ice  and  governor  over  all  Roman  Catholics — over 
every  human  being  —  no  matter  where  or  under  what  gov- 
ernment they  live!  Although  he  resides  in  Rome,  and  is 
crowned  there  as  a  ^foreign  prince,"  he  is,  nevertheless,  a 
domestic  one  in  every  country,  especially  where  there  are 
Roman  Catholics,  because  God's  authority  is  universal,  and 
he  is  in  the  place  of  God  on  earth  !  As  the  spiritual  gov- 
ernor of  the  world,  he  is  also  its  political  governor,  in  so  far 
as  political  teachings  are  necessary  to  the  Church,  because 
the  greater  includes  the  lesser ;  therefore,  when  he  finds  the 
faithful  living  under  a  government  which  denies  this,  and  is 
consequently  infidel,  he  has  the  right  to  require  that  they 
shall  "  come  forward  in  a  political  way,"  and  compel  such 

C)  "  His  Holiness  Pope  Pius  IX.,"  etc.,  by  M.  I.  Rhodes,  p.  28. 
C)  Ibid.,  pp.  47,  48.  C)  Ibid.,  p.  48. 


THE  POPE  A  DOMESTIC  KING  EVERYWHERE.        133 

dissenting  and  heretical  government  to  obey  the  law  of  God 
by  recognizing  his  supremacy,  or  that  they  shall  disobey  the 
government  when  it  refuses  to  do  so  !  For  this  purpose  he 
is  not  a  foreign^  but  a  domestic  prince^  having  authority 
from  God  to  step  in  between  the  citizen  and  his  govern- 
ment, and  to  require  of  him  so  to  act  and  'oote  that  the  uni- 
versality of  his  power  in  all  "  religious,  social,  and  politicaV 
matters  shall  be  established,  according  to  the  canons  of  the 
Church! 

But  it  must  not  be  supposed  that  this  author  is  alone  in 
setting  forth  this  extraordinary  defense  of  papal  sovereign- 
ty. It  has  the  direct  and  positive  sanction  of  Pope  Pius 
IX.,  whose  voice  is  claimed  to  be  as  potent  as  that  of  God. 
To  put  an  end  to  a  recent  controversy  between  the  Church 
at  Rome  and  the  Armenian  Christians  of  Cilicia,  the  pope 
addressed  to  them  an  encyclical  letter,  on  the  6th  day  of 
January,  1873.  These  "Oriental  dissidents,"  as  he  calls 
them,  had  insisted  that,  in  his  attempt  to  control  the  ap- 
pointment of  their  bishops,  and  to  prescribe  the  rules  for  the 
management  and  sale  of  their  church  property,  he  had  acted 
"as  2,  foreign  power  interfering  in  the  exterior  affairs  of 
states  and  the  governments  of  the  peoples."  This,  he  in- 
sists, is  "  calumnious,"  and  thus  defends  his  sovereignty  : 

"It  is  easy  to  understand  how  false  and  contrary  to  good 
sense  and  to  the  divine  economy  of  the  Catholic  Church  are 
all  such  suppositions.  First,  it  is  false  that  the  Roman  pon- 
tiffs have  ever  exceeded  the  limits  of  their  power,  and  inter- 
fered in  the  civil  administration  of  states,  and  that  the)'" 
have  usurped  the  rights  of  princes.  If  the  Roman  pontiffs 
are  exposed  to  this  calumny  because  they  make  regulations 
for  the  election  of  bishops  and  the  sacred  ministers  of  the 
Church,  and  about  the  causes  or  other  affairs  which  con- 
cern the  ecclesiastical  discipline  called  exterior,  then,  of  two 
things,  one :  either  men  ignore,  or  else  they  resist,  the  divine 
and  immutable  organization  of  the  Catholic  Church.  It  has 
ever  been,  and  ever  will  remain,  stable,  and  can  not  be  sub- 
ject to  change,  especially  in  those  countries  where  \j\iQ,  prop- 
er liberty  and  security  of  the  Catholic  Church  have  been  as- 
sured by  the  decrees  of  the  head  of  the  state.  In  fact,  as  it 
\^  of  faith  that  the  Church  is  one,  and  that  the  Roman  pon- 


134  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

tiff  is  her  head,  and  the  father  and  teacher  of  all  Christians, 
he  can  not  he  called  a  foreigner  to  any  Christians  or  to  any 
of  the  particular  churches  of  Christians;  at  least  unless  it 
be  asserted  that  the  head  is  foreign  to  the  limbs,  the  father 
to  the  son,  the  master  to  the  scholars,  the  shepherd  to  the 
flock. 

"Moreover,  those  who  hesitate  not  to  call  the  Apostolic  See 
?i.  foreign  power  rend  the  unity  of  the  Church  by  that  mode 
of  speech,  or  furnish  a  pretext  for  schism,  since  they  thereby 
deny  to  the  successor  of  blessed  Peter  the  rights  of  universal 
pastor,  and  by  consequence /a^7  in  the  faith  due  to  the  Cath- 
olic Church  if  they  are  of  the  number  of  her  sons,  or  they 
assail  the  liberty  that  is  her  due  if  they  do  not  belong  to  her. 
For  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  has  manifestly  made  it  a  duty 
for  the  sheep  to  know  and  hear  the  voice  of  the  shepherd 
and  to  follow  it,  and,  on  the  contrary,  to  fly  from  *  the  stran- 
ger, for  tljey  know  not  the  voice  of  strangers.'  If,  then,  the 
sovereign  pontifl"  be  reputed  extern,  that  is,  a  stranger,  to 
any  particular  churches,  that  church  will  also  be  a  stran- 
ger to  the  Apostolic  See,  and,  consequently,  to  the  Catholic 
Church,  which  is  founded  on  the  words  of  the  Lord  to  Peter. 
They  that  separate  from  that  foundation  do  not  retain  the 
divine  and  Catholic  Church,  but  they  are  striving  to  make  a 
human  church ;  which  being  held  together  only  by  the  hu- 
man tie  of  nationality,  as  they  say,  is  not  any  longer  bound 
together  by  means  oi  it?,  priests  firmly  attached  to  the  see  of 
Peter,  and  can  not  share  in  its  solidity,  nor  be  any  longer  in 
the  universally  formed  and  indissoluble  unity  of  the  Catho- 
lic Church.''^) 

C)  The  Encyclical  of  Pius  IX.  from  which  the  above  extract  is  taken 
will  be  found  at  length  in  The  New  York  Freeman's  Journal  and  Catholic 
Register  of  April  19th,  1873,  where  it  is  published  on  account  of  its  alleged 
'■'permanent  importance."  In  a  previous  number  of  the  same  paper,  that  of 
April  5th,  1873,  this  same  extract,  with  some  verbal  differences  in  transla- 
tion, was  inserted,  accompanied  by  the  following  editorial  remarks : 

"  It  seems  hard  to  believe  that  men  of  sense  will  get  frightened  at  the 
charge  that  we  Catholics,  and  our  bishops,  are  bound  to  believe  and  to  do 
what  the  vicar  of  Christ  commands,  because  this  head  of  the  Church  on 
earth  resides  not  here,  but  in  Rome !  The  vicar  of  Christ  has  himself,  con- 
tinually, declared  that  he  can  not  change  the  doctrines,  nor  the  morals  of 
the  Church.     If  what  he  commands  is  but  the  truth  that  has  been  from  the 


PIUS  IX.  JUSTIFIES  ALL  THE  POPES.  135 

It  is  deemed  just  to  those  who  are  now  endeavoring  to 
convert  the  power  of  a  ''''foreign  prince'''^  into  a  domestic 
power  in  the  United  States,  to  give  the  precise  language 
of  the  pope,  as  furnished  by  a  translation  which,  it  is  said, 
has  the  approval  of  Archbishop  Manning.  The  reader  will 
thereby  be  enabled  to  see  the  process  by  which  this  conver- 
sion is  to  take  place,  and  the  grounds  of  its  justification. 
What  does  Pius  IX.  mean  when  he  says  that  no  "  Roman 
pontiffs  have  ever  exceeded  the  limits  of  their  power,  and 
interfered  in  the  civil  administration  of  states?"  This,  and 
nothing  less :  that  when  they  have  dictated  to  governments, 
denounced,  excommunicated,  and  dethroned  kings,  resisted 
constitutions  and  laws,  and  released  peoples  from  their 
oaths  of  allegiance,  they  have  simply  exercised  their  divine 
authority ;  because,  in  every  instance,  they  were  condemn- 
ing heresy.  For  this  purpose,  his  power  extends  over  the 
whole  world,  and  is  wot  foreign  to  any  government  on  earth. 
Whatsoever,  therefore,  he  may  find  it  necessary  to  do,  in 
order  to  advance  the  welfare  of  the  Church,  extend  its  bor- 
ders, and  provide  for  his  own  dominion  as  the  "  vicar  of 
Christ,"  he  has  the  rightful  power  to  do;  and,  in  doing  it, 
becomes  a  domestic  governor  in  all  the  states.  As  such  do- 
mestic  governor,  he  has  also  the  right  to  require  of  the  faith- 
ful that  they  shall  resist  and  put  out  of  the  way  every  thing, 
every  constitution  and  law,  in  conflict  with  his  ideas  of  the 
divine  purpose.  And  in  case  of  refusal  the  refractory  dis- 
senter is  to  be  visited  with  the  curses  of  the  Church,  with 
excommunication  and  anathema.  All  this,  says  the  pope,  is 
necessary  to  the  ^^  proper  liberty  and  security  of  the  Catholic 
Church  f  and,  therefore,  those  who  do  not  yield  to  him  these 
extraordinary  prerogatives  ^^fail  in  the  faith,^^  and  become 
heretics  and  unbelievers.  Hence  we  have  the  distinct  an- 
nouncement, made  ex  cathedra  by  the  "  vicar  of  Christ "  him- 
self, that  it  is  a  part  of  the  religious  faith  of  the  Church  that 
these  prerogatives  shall  be  conceded  to  him  ;  in  other  words, 

beginning,  what  difference  is  it  whether  he  resides  in  Rome  or  in  Washing- 
ton ?  But,  if  another  answer  is  wanted,  the  Bishop  of  Rome  is  not  a  for- 
eigner. He  belongs  to  us,  as  we  belong  to  him.  Rome  ^s  not  a  foreign  city  ! 
It  does  not  belong  to  Italy ;  it  belongs  to  all  Christendom.  And  the  pope, 
residing  in  Rome,  is  not  an  alien  from  any  of  his  Catholic  flock  /" 


136  T^E  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

that  he  is  a  domestic  governor  throughout  all  the  United 
States,  that  all  the  faithful  are  bound  to  obey  him  in  what- 
soever shall  concern  the  Church,  and  that  if  there  be  any- 
thing in  our  constitutions  or  laws  adverse  to  the  Church,  in 
his  opinion,  he  has  the  divine  right  to  require  them  to  resist 
it  by  their  votes  or  otherwise,  they  being  bound  to  implicit 
and  uninquiring  obedience  !  We  have  already  seen  in  how 
many  things  the  principles  of  our  Protestant  institutions  are 
in  conflict  with  the  teachings  of  the  papacy,  and  shall  here- 
after have  occasion  to  see  what  the  popes  have  done  in  other 
governments  in  order  to  establish  harmony  between  their 
civil  polity  and  the  canon  laws  of  the  Church.  We  can 
scarcely  claim  exemption  from  the  charge  of  ignorance  if 
these  lessons  of  history  do  not  teach  us  wisdom. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  pope  does  not  speak  alone  of 
"  the  election  of  bishops  and  the  sacred  ministers  of  the 
Church."  If  this  were  the  only  matter  of  controversy,  all 
fair-minded  men  would  be  disposed  to  leave  it  to  Roman 
Catholics  themselves  to  settle  the  question  whether  this 
power  should  belong  alone  to  the  pope,  or  be  shared  in  by 
them.  But  he  goes  further,  and  talks  about  ^^  other  affairs 
which  concern  the  ecclesiastical  discipline  called  exterior;^'' 
by  which  he,  undoubtedly,  means  all  those  matters,  of  what- 
soever nature,  whether  "  religious,  social,  or  political,"  which 
are  involved  in  the  papal  policy  of  making  every  body 
"firmly  attached  to  the  see  of  Peter."  These  "other  af- 
fairs" will  more  distinctly  appear  when  the  nature  and  scope 
of  the  doctrine  of  papal  infallibility  are  understood. 

Let  there  be  no  difficulty,  however,  at  this  point,  about 
the  source  of  this  tremendous  power  of  the  pope  :  a  matter 
which  will  be  the  subject  of  more  minute  inquiry  hereafter. 
The  pope  himself  considers  it  as  having  divine  sanction,  not 
as  derived  from  any  concessions  made  by  human  powers. 
The  author  last  quoted  says  the  pope's  temporal  power  "  is 
the  natural  consequence  of  his  spiritual  power,^)  which 
means  that  wherever  the  pope  has  spiritual  power  he  must 
have  political  power  also,  because  the  latter  is  necessarily 
consequent  upon  the  former,  and  can  not  legitimately  exist 

(')  "  His  Holiness  Pope  Pius  IX.,"  etc.,  by  M.  I.  Rhodes,  p.  49. 


THE  POPE  ABOVE  ALL  CIVIL  POWER.  137 

Independent  of  it.  And  he  supports  this  extraordinary- 
claim,  which  is  also  made  by  Pius  IX.  himself,  by  publishing 
at  length  another  papal  bull  issued  by  him  in  1860  "against 
the  despoilei-s  of  the  Church,"  wherein  he  insists  that  his 
temporal  power  is  derived  alone  from  God,  and  is  absolute- 
ly necessary  to  the  Church,  inasmuch  as  it  is  indispensable 
to  him  that  he  shall  "  possess  such  an  amount  of  freedom  as 
to  be  subject,  in  the  discharge  of  its  sacred  ministry,  to  no 
civil  power  ;{^)  that  is,  that  he  must  be  above  all  govern- 
ments and  independent  of  them  all,  and  have  that  "  amount 
of  freedom "  and  irresponsibility  to  constitutions  and  laws 
which  shall  enable  him  to  do  as  he  pleases ! 

There  is  no  difficulty  whatever  in  deciding  what  all  this 
means.  The  author  of  this  book  and  the  pope  mean  the 
same  thing,  and  agree  in  tracing  the  temporal  power  to  the 
spiritual  alone.  The  pope  says,  it  is  necessary  for  the  uni- 
versal Church  that  he,  as  a  prince,  shall  be  subject  to  "/lo 
civil  power''"'  on  earth..  Without  this  absolute  independence 
the  Church  can  not,  in  his  opinion,  exist  consistently  with 
God's  decrees.  The  logical  consequence,  therefore,  is  this : 
that  wherever  this  Church  is  to  be  maintained,  this  same 
political  independence  must  exist ;  for  if  in  Rome  this  po- 
litical necessity  is  an  essential  part  of  religious  faith,  it  is 
equally  so  elsewhere.  If  the  Church  can  not  maintain  itself 
in  Rome,  as  God  requires,  without  having  all  its  children 
submit  to  this  combined  influence  of  the  pope,  it  can  not  do 
so  in  the  United  States  without  a  like  submission.  What- 
ever is  a  necessary  part  of  its  faith  at  one  place,  is  equally 
so  at  all  other  places.  And  can  it  be  doubted  that  if  this 
doctrine  were  let  alone  to  work  out  its  legitimate  results  in 
this  country,  it  would  subject  our  institutions  to  perpetual 
assaults  on  the  part  of  the  subjects  of  this  "  foreign  prince," 
who  owe  their  "  first  duty  "  to  him  ?  They  would  do,  or  not 
do,  as  he  should  command  ;  obey  the  laws,  or  not  obey  them, 
as  he  should  decide  the  welfare  of  the  Church  to  require. 
It  would  erect  a  papal  government  within  that  of  the  United 
States^  with  rival  and  antagonistic  powers  to  this  extent : 
that  whatsoever  the  Government  of  the  United  States  should 

O  "  His  Holiness  Pope  Pius  IX.," etc.,  by  M.  I.  Rhodes,  p.  139. 


138  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

decide  to  do,  not  agreeable  or  acceptable  to  the  pope,  would 
be  opposed  by  his  obedient  subjects  here ;  who  would  put 
their  obedience  to  him  upon  the  ground  that  he  is  in  the 
place  of  God,  and,  therefore,  his  word  is  God's  law ! 

This  author  demonstrates  the  character  of  the  papal  theo- 
ry still  further,  by  showing  that  the  pope  is  a  "A^m^/"  not 
because  he  was  ever  made  so  by  the  people  anywhere,  even 
in  the  papal  states,  but  because  he  is  pope,  and,  as  the  "  head 
of  the  Church,"  holds  the  papal  states  "  for  the  good  of  the 
Church."  Therefore,  he  says  again,  "  he  is  not  a  foreign 
power  in  that  sense  of  the  word  ;"(")  still  holding  fast  to  the 
idea  that  the  kingship  of  the  pope  is  necessary  wherever  he 
is  the  "head  of  the  Church."  The  meaning  is  still  the  same 
as  before:  that  he  can  not  be  pope  without  being  a  king 
also ;  that  although  he  is  a  "  foreign  prince  "  in  so  far  as  he 
wears  the  crown  of  a  foreign  country,  yet  he  is  not  so  in  any 
country  to  his  followers,  who  owe  him  the  obedience  of  a 
domestic  king ;  that  as  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  can  not 
exist  without  a  pope,  it  can  not  exist  without  a  king;  and 
that,  wherever  there  are  Roman  Catholics,  no  matter  under 
what  government,  they  must  obey  this  pope-king^  even  at 
the  hazard  of  disobedience  to  the  laws  that  protect  their 
persons  and  property,  when  he  shall  consider  it  necessary  to 
the  welfare  of  the  Church  to  remove  these  out  of  the  way ! 
Hence,  to  illustrate  the  principle  practically,  if  it  were  pos- 
sible for  a  Roman  Catholic  government  to  invade  the  Uni- 
ted States,  in  order  to  carry  on  a  crusade  for  the  destruction 
of  the  infidelity  and  heresy  of  Protestantism,  and  the  pope 
should  command  all  his  followers  here  to  take  up  arms 
against  the  Government  to  aid  the  crusade,  and  thus  to  serve 
God  and  the  Church,  as  he  would  undoubtedly  do  if  he  acted 
according  to  his  professed  convictions,  it  would  be  their  "  first 
duty  "  to  obey  him,  because,  for  such  a  purpose,  he  is  not  a 
"foreign  prince,"  but  a  domestic  one,  by  virtue  of  his  being 
"in  the  place  of  God  "on  earth,  and  possessing  the  same  uni- 
versality of  authority ! 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  say  that,  in  this  supposed  case, 
there  are  many  thousands  of  Roman  Catholic  laymen  in  the 

O  "His  Holiness  Pope  Pius  IX.,"  etc.,  bj  M.  I.  Rhodes,  p.  51. 


TEMPORAL  POWER  CLAIMED  AS  DIVINE.  139 

United  States  who  would  refuse  to  obey  such  a  command, 
were  it  ever  issued  by  the  pope ;  for  then  they  would  real- 
ize how  insensibly  and  unsuspectingly  they  had  been  drawn 
along  after  the  papal  car,  toward  the  edge  of  a  precipice  over 
which  they  could  not  plunge  without  destruction.  They 
would  then,  as  the  Roman  Catholic  people  of  Italy  have 
done,  begin  to  see  that  wherever  absolutism  has  had  its  own 
Avay,  under  the  claim  of  "divine  right,"  it  has  been  oppress- 
ive and  tyrannical.  They  would  also  realize  that  their  "  first 
duty  "  was  to  the  Government  that  had  protected  them  in  all 
their  religious,  social,  and  political  rights,  which  the  papacy 
has  never  done.  But  while  there  are  thousands  such  as  these, 
both  native  and  foreign-born,  it  can  not  be  disguised  that 
the  bulk,  if  not  all,  of  the  hierarchy,  and  every  single  Jesuit, 
would  obey  the  papal  command ;  or,  if  there  should  be  one 
refusing,  he  would  be  denounced,  anathematized,  and  excom- 
municated by  the  pope. 

See  how  this  author  clings  to  his  favorite  idea  when,  else- 
where, he  thus  expresses  himself; 

"  If  we  take  a  glance  at  the  history  of  the  popes,  we  shall 
see  plainly  how  God  has  made  ternporal  sovereignty  a  neces- 
sary accompaniment  (I  use  the  word  "  necessary  "  not  in  its 
absolute,  but  its  ordinary,  sense)  of  their  spiritual  sovereign- 
ty^ so  that  it  grows  out  of  it^  and  belongs  to  it^  as  its  natural 
right.  In  the  early  ages  of  the  Church,  God  was  pleased  to 
give  a  manifest  testimony  of  her  divine  origin,  by  miracu- 
lously supporting  her,  and  extending  her  limits  without  any 
human  power^  and  in  spite  of  superhuman  obstacles.  Her 
very  existence,  and,  much  more,  her  growth  under  such  cir- 
cumstances, was  a  miracle ;  it  ceased  with  her  infancy.  When 
she  reached  maturity^  God  supplied  her  with  temporal  sovereign- 
ty^ which,  though  no  part  of  her  essence,  is  nevertheless  her 
natural  and  proper  mode  of  action^  and,  as  such,  her  right.'^\'°) 

What  an  admirable  specimen  of  consistent  and  method- 
ical reasoning  is  this  !  The  idea  that,  when  the  Church  was 
weak  and  feeble,  compelled  to  struggle  against  the  powerful 
pagan  governments  which  had  obtained  the  mastery  over 
the  world,  God  left  it  to  make  its  way  "  without  any  human 

C)  "  His  Holiness  Pope  Pius  IX.,"  etc.,  by  M.  I.  Rhodes,  pp.  52,  53. 


140  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

power;"  but  that,  after  it  "reached  maturity"  and  became 
strong,  it  could  not  exist  without  having  "  temporal  sover- 
eignty "  conferred  upon  its  popes,  is,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  a 
wonderful  exhibition  of  sagacity  and  originality.  The  truth, 
is,  and  history  abundantly  proves  it,  apart  from  this  confes- 
sion, that,  throughout  the  early  ages  of  Christianity,  when 
Christians  at  Rome  and  elsewhere  were  known  by  the  puri- 
ty of  their  lives,  and  not  by  mere  professions,  there  was  no 
such  thing  as  the  temporal  sovereignty  of  the  popes.  Each 
bishop  had  jurisdiction  over  his  own  church,  at  Rome,  as 
well  as  at  Alexandria,  Antioch,  Jerusalem,  Corinth,  and  oth- 
er places.  But  when  Constantine  set  the  example  of  uniting 
Church  and  State  by  supporting  the  Church  at  Rome  upon 
the  condition  that  it  would  sustain  his  claim  to  dominion 
over  the  Italian  people,  then  the  bishops  of  Rome  began  to 
arrogate  to  themselves  this  temporal  sovereignty  now  as- 
serted so  earnestly.  They  acquired  it  in  the  end,  without 
i-egard  to  the  number  of  people  who  were  crushed  to  the 
earth,  and  succeeded  in  placing  both  the  spiritual  and  temr 
poral  sword  in  their  hands.  For  hundreds  of  j^ears  these 
swords  rested  but  little  in  their  scabbards,  until  mankind 
were  awakened  to  a  sense  of  duty  and  manhood  by  the 
great  Protestant  Reformation.  From  that  time  to  the  pres- 
ent, the  nations  have  gradually  thrown  off  the  thralldom  of 
the  papacy,  and  bounded  into  new  life.  Yet,  with  all  this 
experience  before  us,  the  American  hierarchy  are  now  striv- 
ing to  bind  the  limbs  of  the  American  people  with  the  rusty 
chains  which  have  been  so  nobly  broken. 

This  author  finds  himself  supported  by  other  high  author- 
ity— the  Roman  Catholic  Bishop  of  Orleans,  in  France.  He 
represents  this  prelate,  when  speaking  of  the  pope,  and  as  a 
monarchist,  of  course,  to  have  said : 

"  In  fact,  it  is  necessary  that  his  action^  his  will^  his  de- 
crees^ his  word^  and  his  sacred  person,  should  enjoy  the  full 
and  free  exercise  of  authority,  rising  above  all  influences,  all 
interests,  all  human  passions ;  so  that  neither  discontented 
interests  nor  irritated  passions  should  have  even  the  shadow 
of  a  right  to  raise  complaints  against  him.^\^^) 

(")  "His  Holiness  Pope  Pius  IX.,"  etc.,  by  M.  I.  Rhodes,  p.  98. 


THE  POPE  GOD'S  ONLY  REPRESENTATIVE.  141 

.  The  Bishop  of  Orleans  might  as  well  have  added  that  the 
pope  should  rise  above  all  governments  too ;  for  this  is  in- 
volved in  what  he  says.  This  author  so  understands  him,  or 
Jie  would  not  have  spoken  of  the  papacy  as  he  does,  when  he 
eays: 

"  The  papacy  is  the  soul  of  the  world.  It  is  the  papacy 
which  preserves  it  from  moral  decay  and  death."  "  The  pa- 
pacy is  the  very  key-stone  of  Christian  society;  it  is  the  salt 
of  the  earth ;  the  city  on  a  hill ;  the  candle  upon  a  candle- 
stick, shining  before  the  whole  world."("^) 

Nor  would  he  have  republished  the  following  from  the 
London  Tablet^  a  leading  papal  organ  in  England,  to  show 
that  the  destruction  of  the  temporal  power  of  the  pope  is 
a  "crime  which  merits  the  sentence  of  excommunication.'^ 
The  Tablet^  speaking  of  the  loss  of  his  kingship  by  the  pope^ 
says: 

"  It  is,  in  other  words,  to  dethrone  the  only  authority  upon 
earth  to  which  the  Catholic  can  look  for  guidance  in  doubt ; 
to  oust  of  his  jurisdiction  the  only  judge  whose  decisions  are 
framed  iii  the  presence  of  God;  to  place  the  world  above  the 
Church,  which  God  has  placed  above  the  world;  and  to  re- 
new under  a  pseudo- Christianity  the  desolation  of  pagan- 
ism."('^) 

In  all  this  we  have  it  plainly  and  distinctly  avowed  that 
the  authority  which  the  pope  acquires  by  virtue  of  his  pos- 
session of  temporal  power  is  absolutely  necessary  to  his  gov- 
ernment of  the  Church ;  and  that  this  is  the  foundation  of 
his  claim  to  obedience.  The  temporal  power  arising  out  of 
the  spiritual  is,  no  less  than  the  spiritual,  of  divine  origin ; 
and  as  it  is  this  which  makes  the  pope  a  king^  therefore  the 
obedience  of  the  faithful  to  him  is  the  obedience  of  the  sub- 
ject to  a  monarch.  It  must  follow,  consequently,  that  where* 
soever  the  pope  does  not  possess  this  temporal  power  he  is 
not  free  to  govern  the  Church  as  he  pleases,  and  the  Church 
is  not  free  to  obey  his  commands.  When,  therefore,  the  pa- 
pal advocates  in  this  country  talk  about  the  freedom  of  the 
pope,  the  freedom  of  the  Church,  and  all  that  sort  of  thing, 


(")  His  Holiness  Pope  Pius  IX.,"  etc.,  by  M.  I.  Rhodes,  pp.  128, 129. 
0  76iU,p.  132. 


/ 

142  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

they  mean  that  the  pope  should  have  the  unquestioned  right 
to  command  as  a  temporal  prince,  and  that  they  should  have 
the  unquestioned  right  to  obey  him,  no  matter  what  stood 
in  the  way.  His  temporal  power,  says  the  London  Tablet^ 
makes  him  "  the  only  judge  whose  decisions  are  framed  in 
the  presence  of  God ;"  otherwise  the  abolition  of  it  would  be 
merely  a  political  offense,  and  not  a  crime  against  God,  wor- 
thy of  excommunication.  If,  then,  it  requires  this  temporal 
power  to  raise  the  Church  above  the  world,  so  that  the  pa- 
pacy may  preserve  it  from  "decay  and  death,"  the  pope 
must  judge  of  temporals  as  well  as  spirituals  all  over  the 
world.  Such  was  the  doctrine  of  the  Jesuits  before  the  Lat- 
eran  decree  of  papal  infallibility  was  passed ;  and  the  papa- 
cy is  now  struggling,  with  wonderful  energy,  to  make  it  the 
doctrine  of  the  whole  Roman  Catholic  world. 

Nobody  will  deny  that  to  concede  the  pope's  infallibility 
is  equivalent  to  recognizing  the  obligation  to  do,  within  the 
entire  circle  of  faith  and  morals,  whatsoever  he  shall  com- 
mand to  be  done.  All  the  important  acts  of  individuals  and 
of  society  are  necessarily  within  this  circle ;  so  that  the 
whole  man,  in  all  that  he  does  and  thinks,  as  a  social  being 
and  a  citizen,  becomes,  by  this  doctrine,  subject  to  this  obe- 
dience. Whatever  position  he  may  fill  in  any  of  the  rela- 
tions of  life,  if  he  be  a  Christian,  he  acknowledges  his  re- 
sponsibility to  God,  and  his  obligation  to  obey  his  law. 
That  law,  therefore,  must  regulate  all  his  intercourse  with 
the  world,  and  encompass  the  whole  field  of  his  duty.  Hence, 
as  the  devotee  of  infallibility  looks  to  the  pope  alone  for  the 
interpretation  of  the  law  of  God,  he  consents  to  obey  him  in 
whatsoever  he  shall  declare  it  to  be.  He  looks  no  farther. 
He  debates  nothing.  The  pope,  with  him,  possesses  the  con- 
centration in  his  own  hands  of  all  the  power  of  heaven  and 
earth,  and  sits  upon  so  lofty  a  throne  that  no  human  being 
dares  to  challenge  the  integrity  of  his  motives  or  the  propri- 
ety and  expediency  of  his  decrees.  He  considers  him  as  oc- 
cupying a  judgment-seat  before  which  all  mankind  must  pass 
in  review.  He  therefore  accepts  what  the  pope  does  and 
says  as  infallibly  right  and  true.  He  makes  no  inquiry  about 
it.  But,  closing  his  mind  to  all  investigation  and  thought, 
he  passively  submits  to  think  and  to  do  every  thing  the  pope 


COMPLETE  SUBJUGATION  OF  THE  WILL.  143 

shall  decree,  and  pronounces  all  to  be  heretics  and  disbe- 
lievers in  Christianity  who  doubt  or  deny  the  virtue  and 
propriety  of  his  submission.  No  matter  what  the  doctrine 
he  is  required  to  believe,  or  the  thing  he  is  required  to  do, 
his  obedience  must  be  complete.  The  Catholic  World  thus 
states  it  : 

"Each  individual  must  receive  the  faith  and  law  from  the 
Church  [that  is,  the  pope]  of  which  he  is  a  member  by  bap- 
tism, with  unquestio9iing  submission  and  obedience  of  the  in- 
tellect and  the  will.i^^) Authority  and  obligation  are 

correlative  in  nature  and  extent We  have  no  right  to 

ask  reasons  of  the  Church  [the  pope],  any  more  than  of  Al- 
mighty God,  as  a  preliminary  to  our  submission.  We  are  to 
take  with  unquestioning  docility  whatever  instruction  the 
Church  [the  pope]  gives  us."(^^) 

God  beneficently  endowed  man  with  the  faculty  of  reason, 
not  merely  to  fit  him  for  dominion  over  the  animal  creation, 
but  that  he  might  be  enabled  to  distinguish  good  from  evil 
— right  from  wrong.  We  do  not  discuss  the  question  wheth- 
er, as  it  regards  each  individual,  God  foreknew  which  of 
these  he  would  prefer  to  follow — that  belongs  to  the  theolo- 
gians ;  but  he  has  sufficiently  shown  by  the  whole  course  of 
his  providences  that  each  one  of  us  will  be  dealt  with  at  the 
final  judgment  as  we  shall  have  personally  acted  in  this  life. 
This  sense  of  personal  responsibility  every  man  feels  within 
himself;  and  there  should  be  no  authority  upon  earth  suffi- 
cient to  deaden  the  consciousness  of  it  in  his  mind.  If  he 
allows  such  authority  to  step  in  between  him  and  God,  so  as 
to  close  his  mind  to  the  investigation  of  truth,  he  necessarily 
surrenders  his  conscience  into  its  keeping,  forfeits  his  right 
to  think,  and  suffers  himself  to  be  drifted  along,  like  a  log 

(")  It  would  seem,  from  the  recent  letter  of  Pope  Pius  IX.  to  the  Emperor 
of  Prussia,  that  all  baptized  Protestant  Christians  are,  in  some  mysterious 
way,  also  bound  to  this  obedience ;  a  claim  which  may  or  may  not  be  here- 
after set  up,  according  to  circumstances.  He  says :  "  I  speak  in  order  to  ful- 
fill one  of  my  duties,  which  consists  in  telling  the  truth  to  all,  even  to  those 
who  are  not  Catholics,  for  every  one  who  has  been  baptized  belongs  in  some 
way  or  other — which  to  define  more  precisely  would  be  Jiere  out  of  place — 
belongs,  I  say,  to  the  pope." — Cincinnati  Commercial,  October  30th,  1873. 

C)  The  Catholic  World,  August,  1871,  vol.  xiii.,  pp.  580-589. 


144  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  PO\YER. 

floating  insensibly  upon  the  water,  either  by  chance,  blind 
necessity,  or  by  rules  prescribed  by  those  who  know  nothing 
of  his  personal  convictions  or  relations,  and  are  influenced 
by  motives  he  can  not  understand.  The  most  ignorant  and 
unlettered  man  knows,  without  the  aid  of  instruction,  that 
the  laws  of  God  require  of  him  personal  obedience ;  and 
that  he  can  not  shield  himself,  for  their  violation,  behind 
what  others  have  thought  or  commanded.  He  knows  that  it 
is  God  who  commands,  and  that  his  conscience  has  been  giv- 
en him  as  a  monitor  to  approve  the  right  and  condemn  the 
wrong  ;  a  duty  which,  blunt  it  as  he  may,  it  never  fails  to  dis- 
charge. If, then, he  surrenders  his  "intellect  and  will"  into 
the  keeping  of  another,  no  matter  who,  and  yields  "  unques- 
tioning submission  and  obedience"  to  whatever  that  other 
shall  command,  his  conscience  becomes  of  no  use  to  him,  and 
he  is  reduced  to  the  condition  of  a  mere  machine ;  like  the 
locomotive  which  moves  or  stops  as  the  engineer  shall  open 
or  close  the  valve  of  the  engine,  so  he  acts  or  ceases  to  act, 
as  he  shall  be  directed.  Paul  ^'' reasoned''^  with  the  Jews  at 
Thessalonica,  Corinth,  and  Ephesus,  and  with  Felix, "out  of 
the  Scriptures,"  and  ^''persuaded''''  them  to  hearken  to  the 
divine  command.  But  such  a  man  does  not  expect  to  be 
reasoned  with  or  persuaded;  he  awaits  only  the  order  of 
some  superior,  and  then  forthwith  renders  "  unquestioning 
submission  and  obedience  !"  He  humbles  and  humiliates 
himself  into  the  low  attitude  of  one  who  knows  his  master^ 
and  realizes  no  necessity  for  further  knowledge.  And  such 
is  the  condition  into  which  the  papacy  proposes  to  reduce 
all  the  members  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  whatever 
degree  of  intelligence  they  may  otherwise  possess,  by  the 
doctrine  of  papal  infallibility. 

And  not  only  is  this  obedience  to  be  rendered  in  what  con- 
cerns faith  and  morals,  but  also  in  what  concerns  the  govern- 
ment and  discipline  of  the  Church,  in  every  thing  necessary 
to  bring  the  individual  into  complete  "  hierarchical  subordi- 
nation and  true  obedience.'''^  In  the  "  first  dogmatic  consti- 
tution," passed  by  the  late  Lateran  Council,  it  is  said : 

"  Hence  we  teach  and  declare  that,  by  the  appointment  of 
our  Lord,  the  Roman  Church  possesses  a  superiority  of  ordi- 
nary power  over  all  other  churches,  and  that  this  power  of 


DECREE  OF  INFALLIBILITY.  145 

jurisdiction  of  the  Roman  pontiffs  which  is  truly  episcopal, 
is  immediate^  to  which  all^  of  whatever  right  and  dignity, 
both  pastors  and  faithful,  both  individually  and  collectively, 
are  hound^  by  their  duty  of  hierarchical  subordination  and 
true  obedience^  to  submit,  not  only  in  matters  which  belong 
to  faith  and  morals,  but  also  in  those  that  appertain  to 
the  discipline  and  government  of  the  Church  throughout  the 
world,  so  that  the  Church  of  Christ  may  be  one  flock  under 
one  supreme  pastor,  through  the  preservation  of  unity  both 
of  communion  and  of  profession  of  the  same  faith  with  the 
Roman  pontiff.  This  is  the  teaching  of  Catholic  truth,  from 
which  no  one  can  deviate  without  loss  of  faith  and  of  salva- 
tion:'!^'') 

In  order  to  make  this  "  hierarchical  subordination  "  com- 
plete, it  is  further  decreed  in  this  same  constitution  that  the 
pope  must  have  "/ree  communication  with  the  pastors  of 
the  whole  Church,  and  with  their  flocks,  that  they  may  be 
taught  and  ruled  by  Mm  in  the  way  of  salvation,"  and  that 
his  right  of  communication  for  this  purpose  must  not  be 
^^  subject  to  the  secular  power ^"^  because  it  is  higher  than  all 
governments,  and  can  not  be  appealed  from,  which  is  pre- 
cisely equivalent  to  saying  that  no  government  has  the  right 
to  stand  in  the  way  between  the  pope  and  his  followers  to 
prevent  them  from  obeying  what  he  shall  command,  or  to 
require  of  them  to  do  what  he  shall  forbid.  This  is  called 
"  the  prerogative  which  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God  vouch- 
safed to  ]o\xi  with  the  supreme  pontifical  office  f  wherefore 
the  pope  "  remains  ever  free  from  all  blemish  of  error:''  And 
upon  this  broad  and  comprehensive  foundation  the  decree  of 
infallibility  is  announced  with  as  much  solemnity  as  if  it  had 
been  really  sent  down,  with  the  voice  of  ten  thousand  trump- 
ets, from  the  heavens,  thus : 

*^We  teach  and  define  that  it  is  a  dogma  divinely  reveal- 
ed, that  the  Roman  pontifl",  when  he  speaks  ex  cathedra — that 
is,  when,  in  discharge  of  the  ofiice  of  pastor  and  doctor  of  all 
Christians,  by  virtue  of  his  supreme  apostolic  authority,  he 
defines  a  doctrine  regarding  faith  or  morals  to  be  held  by 

C^)  "The  Vatican  Council,  and  its  Definitions,"  by  Manning,  pp.  234, 
235. 

10 


146  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

the  Universal  Church,  by  the  divine  assistance  promised  to 
him  in  blessed  Peter — is  possessed  of  that  infallibility  with 
which  the  divine  Redeemer  willed  that  his  Church  should 
be  endowed  for  defining  doctrine  regarding /a  ^^^  or  morals; 
and  that,  therefore,  such  definitions  of  the  Roman  pontiflf  are 
irreformable  of  themselves,  and  not  from  the  consent  of  the 
Church. 

"But  if  any  one  —  which  may  God  avert! — presume  to 
contradict  this  our  definition,  let  him  be  anathema.'*'' {^'') 

The  full  extent  and  scope  of  all  this  is  not  generally  under- 
stood ;  indeed,  it  is  not  accurately  comprehended  by  many 
intelligent  Roman  Catholics  in  this  country,  who,  imitating 
some  of  their  bishops,  have  accepted  it  without  inquiry. 
Such  intelligence  as  they  employ  in  ordinary  matters  would 
enable  them  to  realize  this,  if  they  had  the  courage  to  enter 
upon  the  investigation.  But  having  yielded  this  acquies- 
cence— many  of  them  from  honest  convictions  of  duty  to  the 
Church — they  are  expected  still  further  to  submit,  passively 
and  unresistingly,  to  all  its  consequences,  whatever  they  may 
be.  Whether  they  shall  continue  to  remain  in  this  condition 
or  not,  however,  we,  who  choose  to  act  otherwise,  and  look 
into  these  things  for  ourselves,  are  not  released  from  the  ob- 
ligation of  ascertaining,  if  possible,  what  these  consequences 
may  be,  so  far,  at  least,  as  our  civil  institutions  are  likely  to 
be  involved  by  them. 

It  can  not  be  reasonably  objected  if,  in  making  this  inqui- 
ry, we  shall  take  Archbishop  Manning,  of  England,  who  was 
a  member  of  the  Lateran  Council,  and  is  one  of  the  most  dis- 
tinguished prelates  of  the  Church,  as  furnishing  the  correct 
papal  interpretation ;  for  it  will  not  be  said  by  any  one  that 
he  is  not  the  very  highest  authority.  His  "  Pastoral  to  the 
Clergy"  of  England  has  been  republished  in  the  United 
States  in  book  form,  entitled  "The  Vatican  Council,  and  its 
Definitions,"  thus  giving  it  hiei:archical  indorsement  here. 

This  great  and  learned  divine  does  not  hesitate  to  come 
boldly  up  to  the  question  of  pontifical  power.  He  displays 
the  generalship  of  the  old  marshals  of  France,  who  dash- 
ed against  the  heaviest  columns  of  the  enemy,  not  doubting 


(")  "The  Vatican  Council,  and  its  Definitions,"  by  Manning,  p.  240. 


WHAT  INFALLIBILITY  MEANS.  147 

that  their  courage  would  be  rewarded  by  victory.  Doubtless, 
like  them,  he  hopes  that  his  intrepidity  will  intimidate  all 
adversaries.  In  the  true  spirit  of  imperial  dogmatism,  as  if 
no  earthly  power  dare  question  what  he  says,  he  tells  us  that 
the  "  plenitude  of  power  "  which  belongs  to  the  pope  is  so 
great  and  overshadowing  "  that  no  power  under  God  may 
come  between  the  chief  pastor  and  the  Church,  and  any,  from 
the  highest  to  the  humblest,  member  of  the  flock  of  Christ 
on  earth  !"(*^)  Now,  if  it  shall  appear  that,  in  the  domain 
oi  faith  and  morals^  every  thing  that  a  man  may  do  in  his 
relations  with  society  and  government  is  included,  there  will 
be  no  difiiculty  whatever  in  understanding  what  he  means 
by  denying  to  any  human  power  the  right  of  intervention 
between  the  pope  and  the  individual  members  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church.  If  these  terms  are  thus  comprehensive; 
then  his  language  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  if  the  pope 
shall  command  disobedience  to  any  law  of  any  government, 
touching  faith  or  morals,  and  should  declare  that  such  law 
is  opposed  to  the  welfare  of  the  Church,  the  Roman  Catho- 
lic is  bound  to  obey  the  pope,  and  disobey  the  government, 
which  would  have  no  right,  in  such  a  case,  to  interfere  for 
its  own  protection !  Upon  a  question  of  so  much  delicacy 
he  should  be  allowed  to  explain  his  own  meaning. 

He  quotes  from  the  councils  and  the  fathers  to  show 
what  is  signified  by  the  phrase  "  faith  and  morals."  The 
Council  of  Trent  defines  it  to  embrace  things  "  pertaining  to 
the  edification  of  the  Christian  doctrine."  Bellarmine  eX' 
tends  it  to  those  things  "  which  are  in  themselves  good  or 
evil ;"  and  Gregory  of  Valentia  to  "  any  controverted  matter 
of  religion  :"(^^)  as,  for  example,  the  controversy  between 
Protestantism  and  Roman  Catholicism ;  which  this  last- 
named  father  also  includes  in  his  definition,  by  embracing 
those  things  proposed  by  the  pope,  "  in  deciding  doctrinal 
controversies  and  exterminating  errors?'' i^"") 

Archbishop  Manning  goes  farther  than  this,  and  gives  his 
own  definition.  He  declares  that  the  infallible  guidance  of 
the  Church — that  is,  of  the  pope — extends  to  "all  matters 


^18^  "The  Vatican  Council,  and  its  Definitions,"  by  Manning,  p.  61, 
C")  Ibid.,  pp.  66,  67.  (^°)  Ibid.,  p.  70. 


148  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

which  are  opposed  to  revelation  ;"  for,  says  he,  "the  Church 
could  not  discharge  its  office  as  a  teacher  of  all  nations,  un- 
less it  were  able  with  infallible  certainty  to  proscribe  doc- 
trines at  variance  with  the  word  of  God."  ('^)  To  make  him- 
self better  understood  he  assigns  to  infallibility  two  objects; 
one  direct,t\\Q  other  indirect.  The  first  is  the  revelation  or 
word  of  God;  the  second  lohatever  is  necessary  for  its  expo- 
sition or  defense,  or  is  contrary  to  faith  and  morals.  As  the 
pope  can  condemn  errors  in  all  these  things,  both  direct  and 
indirect,  so,  according  to  him,  he  is  infallible  "  in  proscribing 
false  philosophers  and  false  science ;"(")  which  enables  him 
to  reach  out  far  beyond  the  commonly  recognized  domain  of 
the  Church.  He  extends  his  authority  so  as  to  make  it  em- 
brace also  "  positive  truths  which  are  not  revealed,  whenso- 
ever the  doctrinal  authority  of  the  Church  can  not  be  duly 
exercised  in  the  promulgation,  explanation,  and  defense  of 
revelation  without  judging  and  pronouncing  on  such  matters 
and  truths  f  {^^)  which  means  that  the  pope,  as  the  exclusive 
judge  of  the  faith,  has  full  jurisdiction  to  pronounce  against 
whatsoever  is  opposed  to  revelation,  and  that  when  his  judg- 
ment is  pronounced  it  is  infallibly  right,  and  must  not  only 
be  recognized  as  a  necessary  part  of  the  faith,  but  obeyed  as 
such. 

He  makes  it  extend  also  to  "  the  universal  practice  of  the 
Church  in  commending  the  writings  of  orthodox,  and  of  con- 
demning those  of  heterodox  authors.''^**)  Also,  to  "  condemn- 
ing heretical  propositions ;"(")  and  the  "ethical  character 
of  propositions ;"()  and  propositions  "  less  than  heresy,"  or 
"erroneous  propositions,"(")  that  is,  such  as  are  "scandal- 
ous, offensive,  schismatical,  injurious."(''^)  And,  more  impor- 
tant and  comprehensive  than  all,  so  that  there  may  be  no 
further  cavil  or  controversy  about  it,  this  great  archbishop 
declares  that  "it  belongs  to  the  Church  alone  to  determine 
the  limits  of  its  own  infallibility ;"(")  which  makes  the  whole 
matter  rest  upon  the  sole  discretion  of  the  pope,^o  that  upon 
whatsoever  occasion  or  subject  he  shall  claim  to  be  infalli- 
ble, then  he  is  so !     That  there  may  be  no  misunderstanding 

(")  "The  Vatican  Council,  and 
(")  Ibid.,  p.  73.  n  I^id-,  P-' 
OZ6tU,p.  80.       {^')Ibid.,^. 


here  may  be  no  misunderstandmg 

1  its  Definitions,"  by  Manning,  p.  72. 

.  73.      Q*)  Ibid. ,  p.  79.        C^")  Ibid. ,  ]).  79. 

.81.     O  I^id'^  P-  83.       O  Ibid.,  p.  84. 


THE  POPE  THE  SOLE  JUDGE  OF  HIS  POWER.         149 

upon  a  matter  of  so  much  importance,  he  expresses  the  same 
idea,  elsewhere,  in  these  words  : 

"  The  Church  itself  [and  by  the  Church  he  means  the 
pope]  is  the  divine  witness^  teacher^  judge,  of  the  revelation 
intrusted  to  it.  There  exists  no  other.  There  is  no  tribunal 
to  which  appeal  from  the  Church  can  lie.  There  is  no  co- 
ordinate witness,  teacher,  or  judge,  who  can  revise,  or  criti- 
cise, or  test,  the  teaching  of  the  Church.  It  is  sole  and  alone 
in  the  world."(^") 

By  the  decree  of  infallibility  it  is  distinctly  declared  that 
the  pope,  in  making  "  definitions "  in  regard  to  "  faith  or 
morals,"  derives  nothing  "  from  the  consent  of  the  Church," 
as  an  organized  body  of  Christians.  He  is  the  Church,  be- 
cause all  its  power  and  authority  are  centred  in  him  alone. 
And  so  the  late  Lateran  Council  deliberately  decided.  Not- 
withstanding the  third  Council  of  Constantinople  anathe- 
matized the  infallible  (!)  pope  Honorius  for  heresy,  and  the 
Council  of  Constance  deposed  John  XXIII.  for  the  most  in- 
famous crimes,  and  other  councils  have  maintained  the  claim 
of  the  French  or  Galilean  Church,  that  infallibility  did  not 
belong  to  the  pope  alone,  but  to  an  ecumenical  council  and 
the  pope  combined,  this  submissive  body  of  prelates  surren- 
dered themselves  into  the  hands  of  the  Jesuits  or  ultramon- 
tanes,  and  conceded  to  the  pope  alone  full  power  to  exercise 
the  entire  authority  of  the  Church  in  all  things.  Pius  IX. 
made  this  claim  of  universal  sovereignty,"^ on  account  of  the 
dangers  besetting  his  temporal  dominion ;  and  the  obedient 
cardinals  and  bishops  shouted  amen  to  the  demand,  with 
only  a  few  dissenting  voices,  which,  at  the  time,  were  drown- 
ed in  the  general  rejoicing,  and  afterward  silenced  into  hu- 
miliating acquiescence.  In  the  Encyclical  of  1864,  he  con- 
demned the  "audacity  of  those  persons"  who  ventured  to 
insist  that  they  had  the  right  to  withhold  their  "  assent  and 
obedience  "  to  his  decrees,  when  they  did  "  not  touch  dog- 
mas of  faith  and  morals;"  and  declared  that  all  such  were 
"  entirely  opposed  "  to  "  the  Catholic  dogma  of  the  full  pow- 
er divinely  given  to  the  Roman  pontiflf,"  etc. ;(")  that  is  to 

* 
O  "The  Vatican  Council,  and  its  Definitions," by  Manning,  pp.  128,  129. 
(")  Appendix  C. 


150  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

say,  that,  although  the  pope  shall  deem  it  his  duty  to  issue 
a  decree  relating  to  matters  other  than  those  touching  faith 
and  morals,  and  command  obedience  to  it,  all  the  faithful 
must  implicitly  obey  it.  This  was  then  a  mere  claim  of  au- 
thority, unsupported  by  the  decree  of  any  one  of  the  many 
ecumenical  councils  which  have  been  held,  and  was,  there- 
fore, resisted  by  many  thousands  of  honest  Roman  Catho- 
lics, who  thought  they  saw' in  its  establishment  the  triumph 
of  absolutism.  Now  it  is  the  Imo  of  the  Church ;  and  the 
voices  of  these  thousands  are  hushed  into  the  silence  of  the 
tomb.  Whether  their  silence  shall  ever  hereafter  be  broken 
or  not,  all  who  believe  in  infallibility,  or  accept  it,  must  be 
held  to  recognize  this  claim  of  papal  supremacy,  in  all  its 
scope,  and  to  any  extent  to  which  the  pope  shall  think  prop- 
er to  carry  it.  It  is  impossible  to  imagine  how  it  can  be 
otherwise ;  for  if  the  pope  can  not  err,  and  can  decide  for 
himself  what  the  extent  of  his  infallibility  is,  then,  whatso- 
ever he  claims  as  belonging  to  his  pontifical  authority  must 
be  granted  to  him,  upon  the  ground  that,  being  infallible,  it 
is  impossible  for  him  to  assert  any  thing  that  is  not  true,  or 
to  demand  any  thing  that  is  not  consistent  with  the  law  of 
God.  If  infallibility  does  not  go  thus  far,  there  is  nothing  in 
it.  If  it  stops  short  of  full,  complete,  and  entire  power,  it 
is  not  infallibility.  And  so  it  is  understood  by  those  who 
are  the  official  and  authorized  interpreters  of  its  meaning. 
In  The  Catholic  World  for  May,  1871,  there  is  an  ably  writ- 
ten article,  reviewing  Archbishop  Manning's  pastoral  let- 
ter, under  the  significant  title,  "  The  Church  Accredits  Her- 
selff'')  The  argument  there  is  that  the  Word  of  God  must 
be  true,  because  God  declares  it  to  be  so ;  that  the  Roman 
Gatholic  Church  is  the  only  authority  on  earth  commissioned 
by  God  to  declare  what  that  word  is ;  that  she  is  the  wit- 
ness for  herself,  and  is  "competent  and  sufficient  authority 
for  that  fact ;"  that  "  she  can  not  err  in  declaring  what  God 
has  revealed  and  commanded ;"  and  that,  therefore,  she  is 
'''•what  she  affirms  herself  to  bef^  or,  in  more  apt  language, 
vfh^t  the  pope  affirms  her  to  be,  in  reference  to  both  juris- 
diction and  authority !  No  Oriental  monarch  ever  had  more 
absolute  power  than  this. 

("^)  The  Catholic  World,  May,  1871,  vol.  xiii.,  p.  145. 


DIRECT  AND  INDIRECT  POWER.  151 

Many  good  and  intelligent  laymen  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  have  been  deluded  into  the  belief  that  the  pope's  in- 
fallibility is  limited  to  questions  oi  faith  alone,  in  the  ordi- 
nary acceptance  of  that  term.  But  this  theory  of  Pius  IX., 
of  Archbishop  Manning,  and  of  The  Catholic  World^  explodes 
that  idea  entirely.  It  includes  not  only  morals,  but  every 
thing  pertaining  to  the  domain  of  morals — every  thing,  in 
fact,  which  the  pope  himself  shall  declare  to  be  embraced  by 
it,  within  or  without  that  domain.  The  Church  speaks  alone 
through  him,  having  surrendered  up  every  other  mode  of 
utterance.  Consequently,  if  he  shall  declare  that  any  par- 
ticular government  or  form  of  government,  any  constitution 
or  law,  is  inconsistent  with  the  divine  law,  prejudicial  to  the 
increase  of  faith  or  to  the  growth  or  liberty  of  the  Church, 
the  believer  in  infallibility  is  bound  to  regard  the  declara- 
tion as  infallibly  made,  as  an  essential  part  of  the  faith  of 
the  Church,  and  that  disbelief  in  it  is  heresy^  and  sinful  in 
the  sight  of  God  !  Archbishop  Manning  makes  this  avowal, 
substantially,  in  these  words : 

"  First,  that  the  infallibility  of  the  Church  extends,  as  we 
have  seen,  directly  to  the  whole  matter  of  revealed  truth, 
and  indirectly  to  all  truths  which,  though  not  revealed^  are  in 
such  co7itact  icith  revelation  that  the  deposit  of  faith  and 
morals  can  not  be  guarded,  expounded,  and  defended  with- 
out an  infallible  discernment  of  such  unrevealed  truths."(^^) 

Here  it  is  asserted,  without  equivocation,  that  infallibility 
extends,  indirectly^  to  all  matters  and  things  which  stand  in 
the  way  of  the  progress  of  the  Church,  no  matter  what  their 
nature  or  character.  The  Church  must  be  ''^  guarded^''  its 
faith  must  be  "  expounded^'*  and  its  supreme  authority  over 
all  opposing  secular  power  must  be  ^^  defended^''  and  main- 
tained, at  every  hazard !  Whatever  government,  or  consti- 
tution, or  law  shall  impede  the  consummation  of  these  ends 
must  be  resisted !  Whatsoever  the  pope  shall  direct  to  be 
done  to  secure  their  triumph  must  be  done,  because  ^'' the 
Church  accredits  herself^''  and  he  is  her  infallible  head,  stand- 
ing "  171  the  place  of  GodP 

The  Catholic  World,  in  the  article  referred  to,  is  somewhat 

f)  "The  Vatican  Council,  and  its  Definitions,"  by  Manning,  p.  84. 


152  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

more  specific  than  Archbishop  Manning  in  defining  the  in- 
direct authority  of  the  pope  in  matters  concerning  morals. 
Seeming  to  foresee  the  ultimate  point  to  which  the  doctrine 
of  infallibility  logically  and  necessarily  leads,  and  not  dis- 
posed to  be  behind  others  in  defending  it,  the  author  of  this 
article,  with  commendable  frankness,  says : 

"  The  principles  of  ethics,  and,  therefore,  of  politics  as  a 
branch  of  ethics,  all  lie  in  the  theological  order;  and  without 
theology  there  is  and  can  be  no  science  of  ethics  or  politics; 
and  hence  we  see  that  both^  with  those  who  reject  theology, 
are  purely  empii'ical^  \\il\\o\xt  any  scientific  basis."(^*) 

Here  it  is  emphatically  announced  that  ethics  and  politics 
— the  latter  as  a  branch  of  the  former — are  both  within  the 
domain  embraced  by  the  pope's  infallibility,  and  are  both 
under  the  guidance  and  direction  of  the  pope,  because  they 
both  "  lie  in  the  theological  order,"  and  because  all  govern- 
ments not  based  upon  ''''theology''''  are  ''''purely  empirical V* 

(^)  The  Catholic  World,  May,  1871,  vol.  xiii.,  p.  155.  Several  well-writ- 
ten  articles  have  appeared  in  the  New  York  Freeman's  Journal,  wherein  the 
author  has  treated  of  "  the  future  of  Europe."  In  one  of  them,  when  speak- 
ing of  the  establishment  of  theocracy  in  the  nineteenth  century,  he  says  that 
"theocracy,  when  properly  understood,  should  be  the  end  of  every  reasona- 
ble man."  He  then  insists  that  the  union  of  Church  and  State  "does  not 
consist  in  the  absorption  of  the  Church  by  the  State,  or  of  the  State  by  the 
Church,"  but  in  leaving  each  to  its  separate  sphere,  with  the  Church  as  "  the 
directress  of  conscience"  and  "  the  mistress  of  truth,"  not  by  intervening  in 
the  affairs  of  State,  but  by  giving  "  the  signals.''  To  do  this,  he  insists  that 
she  must  have  liberty,  and  that  the  State  must  receive  her  warnings  with  re- 
spect: "in  other  words,"  says  he,  "the  Church  does  not  directly  enter  into 
the  governments  of  states,  for  such  is  not  her  mission,  but  indirectly,  inas- 
much as  political  questions  are  connected  with  morals.  Such  is  her  duty, 
for,  mistress  of  truth,  guardian  of  morals,  she  is  bound  to  condemn  evil." 
In  his  view,  all  those  who  govern  should  be  "the  lieutenants  of  Jesus 
Christ;"  and  as  society  can  be  saved  from  ruin  in  no  other  way,  he  thinks 
that  "the  future  belongs  to  the  principles  of  the  Syllabus." 

In  commending  these  articles  to  the  readers  of  the  Freeman's  Journal,  the 
editor  says :  "This  is  the  kind  of  reading  that  men,  in  every  condition  of  so- 
ciety, ought  to  accustom  themselves  to  and  to  love.  There  is  not  a  Catholic 
man  in  America  that  is  so  fully  instructed  that  he  will  not  find  a  pleasure  in 
reading  this  exposition.  Those  less  read  ought  to  seek  in  such  writings  the 
basis  of  right  political  appreciations.  We  heartily  commend  these  papers  in 
our  Journal  to  all  our  readers  as  sound  and  good  reading." — New  York 
Freeman's  Journal  and  Catholic  Register,  April  Gth,  1872. 


OBEDIENCE  OR  EXCOMMUNICATION.  153 

Political  affairs  are  reached  indirectly,  inasmuch  as  they  are 
not  revealed ;  but  being  included  in  morals,  which  are  re- 
vealed, a  papal  decree  in  reference  to  them  is  just  as  infalli- 
bly true  and  obligatory  as  if  it  were  confined  to  revealed 
faith  alone.  Hence  if  the  pope  shall  declare  that  any  polit- 
ical opinions  are  wrong,  unjust,  or  immoral,  in  the  sight  of 
God,  the  declaration  must  be  held  by  all  obedient  children 
of  the  Church  to  be  unerringly  and  indisputably  true ;  and 
to  save  themselves  from  excommunication  for  heresy,  they 
must  make  exterminating  war  upon  all  such  opinions.  Hence, 
also,  if  he  shall  declare  that  any  existing  government  is  op- 
posed to  the  welfare  of  the  Church,  and,  therefore,  to  the  law 
of  God,  the  same  result  must  follow.  And  hence,  again,  if 
he  shall  declare  that  the  Government  of  the  United  States  is 
unjust,  oppressive,  and  an  act  of  usurpation,  because  it  gives 
license  to  the  heresy  of  Protestantism ;  because  it  repudiates 
the  doctrine  of  the  "  divine  ri^ht "  of  kings ;  because  it  al- 
lows the  people  to  make  their  own  laws;  because  it  requires 
the  Roman  Catholic  hierarchy  to  obey  the  laws  thus  made ; 
because  it  does  not  recognize  the  Roman  Catholic  religion  as 
the  only  true  religion ;  because  it  recognizes  the  right  of 
each  individual  to  interpret  the  Scriptures  for  himself,  and 
to  entertain  whatsoever  religious  belief  his  own  conscience 
and  reason  shall  approve,  or  none  at  all,  if  he  shall  think  fit ; 
because  it  has  separated  Church  and  State,  and  denies  the 
right  of  the  Church  to  subordinate  the  State  to  any  of  its 
laws ;  because  it  not  only  tolerates,  but  fosters  and  protects, 
free  thought,  free  speech,  and  a  free  press ;  and  because  it  is, 
on  account  of  any  or  all  of  these  things,  in  open  violation  of 
the  divine  law,  and  therefore  heretical — does  not  every  man 
of  common  sense  see  that  the  papal  followers  must  select  be- 
tween conformity  to  his  opinions  and  excommunication  ?  be- 
tween obedience  to  him  and  the  forfeiture  of  eternal  salva- 
tion ?  between  resistance  to  the  Government  and  his  pontif- 
ical curse  ?  between  treason  and  hierarchical  denunciation  ? 
Archbishop  Manning  reasons  thus :  "  The  primacy  is  a  per- 
sonal privilege  in  Peter  and  his  successors ;"(")  and  there- 
fore "  the  Roman  pontiff  needs  the  help  and  society  of  no 

Q^)  "The  Vatican  Council,  and  its  Definitions,"  by  Manning,  p.  101. 


154  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

other  ;"(^'')  and  therefore,  also,  the  "  doctrinal  authority"  of 
the  pope  is  '''' personal^ i^'')  And  the  conclusion  he  reaches 
is,  that,  in  order *to  the  "  proper  exercise  "  of  infallibility,  it  is 
the  duty  of  the  pope  to  bring  the  whole  world  into  "  unity 
with  the  Catholic  faith  ;"  employing,  of  course,  in  the  faith- 
ful discharge  of  this  duty,  whatsoever  means  he  may  deem 
necessary  to  that  end.  Upon  this  question  he  is  explicit. 
He  quotes,  with  approbation,  from  the  doctrines  maintained 
by  Bellerini,  the  following  propositions  laid  down  by  that 
author : 

"  Unity  with  the  Roman  faith  is  absolutely  necessary^  and 
therefore  the  prerogative  of  absolute  infallibility  is  to  be  as- 
cribed to  it,  and  a  coercive  power  to  constrain  to  unity 
of  faith,  in  like  manner,  absolute  y'  as  also  the  infallibility  and 
coercive  power  of  the  Catholic  Church  itself,  which  is  bound 
to  adhere  to  the  faith,  are  absolute."(^^) 

Bellerini,  it  will  be  observed,  places  \h\s^^  coercive  power ^"^ 
which  is  simply  the  power  to  employ  force,  in  tfhe  Churchy 
as  pertaining  to  its  plan  of  organization.  Pius  IX.  does  the 
same  thing  in  the  Syllabus.  But  as,  according  to  the  decree 
of  infallibility,  the  pope  absorbs  in  himself  alone  all  the  au- 
thority of  the  Church,  as  a  "  personal  privilege,"  Archbish- 
op Manning  reconciles  the  apparent  difficulty  by  declaringj 
"  This  infallibility  and  coercive  power  are  to  be  ascribed  to 
him  [the  pope],  and  are  personal.'''' {^^)  Hence  we  have  this 
logical  and  inevitable  result,  that,  when  the  pope  alone,  with- 
out any  aid  from  councils,  cardinals,  or  bishops,  shall  decree 
that  a  resort  to  force  is  necessary  to  secure  "  unity  with  the 
Catholic  faith,"  or  to  get  rid  of  any  thing,  or  any  govern- 
ment, constitution,  or  law,  which  prevents  or  retards  that 
unity,  he  acts  infallibly — in  the  place  of  God — and  all  the 
faithful  are  bound  to  obedience;  in  the  language  of  The 
Catholic  World,  to  "unquestioning  submission  and  obedi- 
ence of  the  intellect  and  will !" 

And  it  is  only  by  rendering  this  obedience  that  the  body 
of  the  Church  becomes  as  infallible  as  the  head,  for  it  seems 
to  be  possessed  of  such  diifusive  qualities  that  it  may  be 

C®)  "The  Vatican  Council,  and  its  Definitions,"  by  Manning,  p.  102. 
(")  Ibid.,  p.  103.  (^«)  Ibid.,  p.  103.  Q')  Ibid.,  p.  104. 


INFALLIBILITY  UNIVERSAL  IN  THE  CHUECH.        155 

made  to  permeate  the  entire  membership.  ^^Both  are  infal- 
lible," that  is,  the  head  and  body,  says  Archbishop  Manning, 
''the  one  actively ^m  teaching, the  oI\\qv personally  in  believ- 
ing-''^")  He  gives  the  reasons,  "Because  its  head  can  never 
err,  it,  as  a  body,  can  never  err."(^')  And  because  the  pope 
can  not  exercise  "  an  infallible  office  fallibly,"  therefore  he 
can  not  err  "m  the  selection  of  the  means  of  its  exercise  f^  i^"^) 
no  matter  what  those  means  may  be,  whether  peaceful  or 
coercive.  Hence  the  same  result  as  before  is  reached,  that 
whenever  he  shall  determine  that  the  best "  means  "  of  bring- 
ing about  "unity  with  the  Catholic  faith"  throughout  the 
world  or  in  any  part  of  it  is  by  employing  ^'  coercive  2^ower^''^ 
such  a  decision  becomes  absolute  truth,  about  which  no  doubt 
can  or  will  be  allowed.  The  act  of  deciding,  on  his  part,  is 
infallible;  and  the  body  of  the  Church,  by  passive  obedience, 
becomes  also  infallible  !  To  deny  his  infallibility  '■^  after  the 
definition,  is  heresy;''^  to  deny  it  before^  is  "  proximate  to  her- 

esy."(") 

Of  course,  such  infallibility  as  this  must  be  absolute.  It 
is  declared  to  be  so, "  inasmuch  as  it  can  be  circumscribed 
by  no  human  or  ecclesiastical  law.^^(**)  Therefore  it  is  above 
all  law  or  constitutions,  so  that  when  exercised  by  the  pope 
all  these  may  be  trampled  underfoot,  if  he  shall  so  decree. 
It  wall  not  allow  any  appeal  to  history,  in  order  that  it  may 
be  inquired  whether  it  is  or  is  not  consistent  with  the  teach- 
ings of  Christ,  or  of  his  immediate  disciples,  or  of  the  apos- 
tolic fathers  of  the  early  Church.  History  is  a  wilderness 
into  which  it  will  allow  none  to  wander  w^ithout  a  guide  of 
its  own  appointment;  and  it  denies  to  every  man  the  right 
to  exercise  his  own  "  reason  or  common  sense  "  in  separating 
the  true  from  the  false.  "If  any  one  say,"  continues  the 
learned  archbishop, "  that  there  is  no  judge  but  right  reason 
or  common  sense,  he  is  only  reproducing  in  history  what 
Luther  applied  to  the  Bible."(")  Again,  "  In  Catholics  such 
a  theory  is  simple  heresy.^"*  Why?  He  answers  thus:  "The 
only  source  of  revealed  truth  is  God,  the  only  channel  of  his 


(*")  "The  Vatican  Council,  and  its  Definitions,"  by  Manning,  p.  113. 
CO  ^bid.  C)  Ibid. ,  p.  11 4.  C)  Ibid. ,  pp.  1 18,  1 19. 

Olbid.  C")  Ibid.,  p.  121. 


156  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

revelation  is  the  Church.  No  human  history  can  declare 
what  is  contained  in  that  revelation.  The  Church  [the  pope] 
alone  can  determine  its  limits^  and  therefore  its  contents.'''' 
And  when  the  pope,  acting  for  the  Church,  does  determine 
what  are  its  limits  and  contents,  "  no  difficulties  of  human 
history  can  prevail  against  it."  The  Church  is  "  the  city 
seated  on  a  hill ;"  it  "  is  its  own  evidence^  anterior  to  its  his- 
tory, and  independent  of  it.  Its  history  is  to  he  learned  of 
itself:\'') 

Thus  the  pope  is  made  the  last,  final,  and  only  judge  in 
every  thing.  He  is  the  tribunal  of  last  resort  upon  every 
question  he  shall  undertake  to  decide.  He  is  infallible  when- 
ever he  shall  decide,  and  whenever  he  declares  himself  to  be 
so.  Whatsoever  he  commands,  in  the  vast  domain  embraced 
by  his  jurisdiction,  has  infallibility  instantaneously  attach- 
ed to  it.  Whatsoever  he  shall  announce  in  reference  to  the 
Church,  its  history,  its  faith,  its  discipline,  its  rules  of  ethics, 
its  requirements  of  its  members,  its  demands  upon  the  world, 
its  rights,  its  authority,  his  own  power  and  that  of  his  hie- 
rarchy in  all  the  nations — all  this  becomes  absolute  truth^  and 
must  be  accepted  and  obeyed  as  such  !  There  must  be  no 
doubting,  no  hesitation,  no  inquiry,  no  resort  to  reason ;  for 
either  to  doubt,  or  to  hesitate,  or  to  inquire,  or  to  appeal  to 
reason,  is  heresy !  The  most  accredited  books  of  history 
must  be  closed.  The  mind  must  be  shut  up  so  that  not  a 
ray  of  light  can  penetrate  it.  The  reason  must  be  stifled  by 
closing  every  avenue  of  access  to  it.  The  whole  man  must 
be  subjugated.  Every  thing  must  be  surrendered  to  the 
pope,  because  it  is  impossible  for  him  to  err ;  because  "  the 
Church  itself  is  the  divine  witness,  teacher,  and  judge  of 
the  revelation  intrusted  to  it;"(*^)  because  no  human  power 
"can  revise,  or  criticise,  or  test"  her  teachings ;(*^)  because 
"  the  pastors  of  the  Church  with  their  head  are  a  witness 
divinely  sustained  and  guided  to  guard  and  to  declare  the 
faith ;"  because  these  obtain  their  testimony,  "  not  in  human 
history,  but  in  apostolical  tradition,  in  Scripture,  in  creeds, 
in  the  Liturgy,  in  the  public  worship  and  law  of  the  Church, 

(")  "The  Vatican  Council,  and  its  Definitions,"  by  Manning,  p.  125. 
O  Ibid.,  p.  128.  O  Ibid.,  p.  129. 


EEVOLUTION  IS  ATHEISM.  157 

in  councils,  and  in  the  interpretation  of  all  these  things  by  the 
supreme  authority  of  the  Church  275e^"(")— that  is,  the  pope 
— and  because  the  Church,  through  the  pope,  '■'can  alone  de- 
termine the  extent  of  its  own  infallibility  r  {^""^ 

Archbishop  Manning  is,  beyond  all  question,  a  man  of  em- 
inent ability ;  far  too  sagacious  not  to  see  the  results  which 
must  logically  follow  these  papal  doctrines,  this  absorption 
of  all  power,  within  the  illimitable  domain  of  faith  and  mor- 
als, by  an  infallible  pope.  And,  therefore,  observing  the 
present  condition  of  the  Christian  world,  and  seeing  the  na- 
tions, hitherto  Roman  Catholic,  gradually  conceding  to  the 
people  more  political  rights  than  they  ever  enjoyed  before, 
and  witnessing  the  fact  that  the  Roman  Catholic  people  of 
Italy  have  solemnly  decided,  with  wonderful  unanimity,  that 
the  pope  shall  be  "  King  of  Rome  "  no  longer,  but  a  mere 
bishop  of  the  Church,  he  breaks  out  in  these  doleful  words : 

"But  what  security  has  the  Christian  world?  Without 
helm,  chart,  or  light,  it  has  launched  itself  into  the  falls  of 
revolution.  There  is  not  a  monarchy  that  is  not  threatened. 
In  Spain  and  France  monarchy  is  already  overthrown.  The 
hated  Syllabus  will  have  its  justification.  The  Syllabus, 
which  condemned  atheism  and  revolution,  would  have  saved 
Society.  But  men  would  not.  They  are  dissolving  the  tem- 
poral power  of  the  vicar  of  Christ.  And  why  do  they  dis- 
solve it?     Because  governments  are  no  longer  Christian.'''' (^^) 

With  Archbishop  Manning  and  all  who  maintain,  as  he 
does,  the  enormous  powers  and  prerogatives  of  the  pope,  all 
governments  not  monarchical  are  revolutionary,  and  "athe- 
ism and  revolution  "  are  twin  sisters.  The  pope,  as  "  King 
of  Rome,"  was  a  temporal  monarch,  and  wore  a  crown  like 
any  other  king.  The  loss  of  it  by  him,  and  the  like  loss  in 
France  and  Spain,  contributed  at  least  to  one  practical  re- 
sult :  the  advancement  of  the  people  toward  that  condition  in 
which  they  may  have  some  voice  in  making  the  laws  under 
which  they  are  to  live,  and  the  creation  of  a  hope  that  the 
time  may  come  when  they  shall  get  along  with  their  public 
affairs  without  the  assistance  of  monarchs.     While  this  is 


(*^)  "The  Vatican  Council,  and  its  Definitions,"  by  Manning,  p.  129. 
O  Ibid.,  p.  135.  C^')  Ibid.,  p.  165. 


158  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

the  cause  of  exultation  and  gladness  to  all  the  advocates  of 
popular  government,  to  the  papist  it  is  the  cause  of  sadness 
and  grief,  because  he  sees  in  the  loss  of  monarchy  the  cer-- 
tain  death  of  the  papacy — the  sure  downfall  of  the  whole 
superstructure  of  the  papal  temporal  dominion.  And  he  ex- 
claims, as  Archbishop  Manning  does,  that  "governments  are 
no  longer  Christian,"  because  they  are  no  longer  Roman 
Catholic  !  There  is,  with  him,  no  other  Christianity  than  that 
professed  by  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  under  papal  dic- 
tation!  Every  man  who  does  not  believe  as  that  Church 
teaches,  through  the  pope,  is  worse  than  a  heathen — he  is  an 
infidel !  Protestantism  embodies  no  religion  at  all ;  it  is  in- 
fidelity and  the  most  odious  form  of  heresy  !  Under  its  per- 
nicious influence  the  world  is  rapidly  drifting  toward  a  fear- 
ful precipice,  "  without  helm,  chart,  or  light,"  and  must  soon, 
if  not  arrested  by  the  papal  arm,  plunge  into  the  terrible 
abyss  below  !  When  it  shall  have  done  this,  and  darkness 
and  despair  shall  have  settled  over  the  fair  places  of  the 
earth,  and  the  groans  of  suffering  humanity  shall  have  reach- 
ed the  heavens,  then  "  the  hated  Syllabus  will  have  its  justi- 
fication^'^ because  it  pointed  out  the  method  of  escape  !  The 
Syllabus  "  would  have  saved  society  /" 

Having  thus  ascertained  what  the  infallibility  of  the  pope 
means,  according  to  the  definition  of  its  ablest  advocates, 
who  are  themselves  infallible ;  how  it  raises  up  the  papacy 
above  all  human  governments  and  all  the  nations  and  peo- 
ples of  earth ;  how  it  likens  the  pope  to  God  in  all  the  es- 
sential attributes  of  sovereignty ;  how  it  enables  him  to  de- 
cide for  himself  and  without  any  human  restraint,  the  ex- 
tent and  nature  of  his  own  personal  power  and  authority 
over  mankind;  how  completely  it  demands  the  closing  of  all 
investigation,  the  shutting-up  of  all  minds,  and  the  passive 
and  humiliating  obedience  of  both  "intellect  and  will"  to 
all  papal  decrees;  and  how  it  possesses  coercive  power  to  eii- 
force  this  obedience  when  it  is  refused — our  investigations 
would  be  incomplete  if  we  did  not  hereafter  carry  them  to 
the  point  of  ascertaining  how  the  ills  with  which  society  is 
now  afflicted  are  to  be  remedied ;  how,  when  all  mankind- 
shall  come  to  obey  the  pope,  they  are  to  be  governed,  if 
that  millennial  period  shall  ever  arrive.    We  have  the  means 


I  INFALLIBILITY  EMBRACES  THE  FUTUKE.  159 

of  discovering  something  about  the  past,  and  know  what  the 
present  is ;  but  what  kind  of  future  there  is  in  store  for  us 
when  the  papacy  shall  triumph,  as  its  devotees  pretend  to 
believe  it  will,  can  only  be  learned  from  its  authoritative 
teachings  and  from  its  past  history.  Whatever  its  history 
has  been,  and  whatever  its  present  teachings  are,  the  whole 
is  accepted  as  infallible  truth,  by  those  who  submit  to  the 
dogma  of  infallibility.  Whatever  they  may  be  to-morrow, 
or  next  day,  or  next  year,  or  at  any  time  in  the  immediate 
or  remote  future,  they  will  be  accepted  in  like  manner;  for 
the  papacy,  under  the  guidance  of  the  crafty  followers  of 
Loyola,  demands  submission,  not  merely  to  all  the  past  and 
present  decrees  of  the  popes,  but  to  all  that  2,\\y  future  pope, 
or  the  present  one,  shall  hereafter  promulgate !  Thus  The 
Catholic  World  instructs  us.  In  an  article  upon  "  Infallibili- 
ty," published  in  the  number  for  August,  1871,  this  doctrine 
is  set  forth  in  these  words : 

"A  Catholic  must  not  only  believe  what  the  Church  now 
proposes  to  his  belief,  but  he  ready  to  believe  whatever  she 
may  hereafter  propose.  And  he  must,  therefore,  be  ready  to 
give  up  any  or  all  of  his  probable  opinions  so  soon  as  they 
are  condemned  and  proscribed  by  a  competent  authority."(") 

And  this  he  must  do,  as  this  same  authority  instructs  us, 
"  with  unquestioning  submission  and  obedience  of  the  intel- 
lect and  will,"  by  the  forfeiture  of  his  manhood  and  the  de- 
basement of  his  nature,  and  with  no  more  "  right  to  ask  rea- 
sons" of  either  pope  or  priest,  than  he  has  to  ask  them  of  Al- 
mighty God  !  The  servitude  of  negro  slavery  was  not  more 
humiliating,  the  difference  being  only  the  substitution  of  the 
lash  of  excommunication  for  that  of  the  slave-driver. 

Thus,  by  the  wonderful  perfectness  of  this  ecclesiastical 
organization,  we  find  it  in  possession  of  authority  over  the 
minds,  consciences,  thoughts,  and  actions  of  so  large  a  por- 
tion of  our  population  as  to  assure  us,  with  reasonable  cer- 
tainty, that  many  of  them  will  attempt  to  do,  directly  or  in- 
directly, whatsoever  the  pope  shall  require  of  them.  That 
he  would  reconstruct  our  Government  so  as  to  make  it  con- 
form to  his  own  views  in  all  those  things  which  concern  the 

C^")  The  Catholic  World,  August,  1871,  vol.  xiii.,  p.  586. 


160  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

Church,  its  welfare,  and  its  faith,  by  subordinating  all  our 
constitutions  and  laws,  in  each  of  these  particulars,  to  his 
sovereign  will,  no  fair-minded  and  sensible  man  will  deny. 
That  he  would  take  from  the  people  the  right  to  make  any 
laws  except  such  as  he  shall  consider  consonant  to  the  divine 
law,  there  is  not  the  least  doubt.  That  he  would  subject 
the  State  to  the  domination  of  the  Church  in  the  entire  do- 
main of  faith  and  morals,  every  body  knows.  That  he  would 
give  entire  independence  to  his  hierarchy  in  the  United 
States,  so  that  they  should  not  be  answerable  to  the  civil 
law,  even  for  crimes  of  the  greatest  magnitude,  there  is  abun- 
dant and  convincing  proof.  That  he  would  abolish  every 
other  form  of  religious  belief  but  that  of  his  own  Church,  and 
secure  to  it  the  prerogative  of  exclusiveness  by  intolerant  pe- 
nal laws,  and  abolish  free  speech  and  a  free  press,  he  has  him- 
self avowed  in  almost  every  form  of  utterance.  Therefore, 
we  have  the  greatest  possible  interest  in  knowing  to  what 
extent  he  is  likely  to  obtain  obedience  from  his  followers  in 
this  country  upon  each  and  all  of  these  great  and  vital  ques- 
tions; what  kind  of  institutions  he  would  erect  in  the  place 
of  those  we  have ;  and  how  he  proposes,  in  his  unbounded 
pontifical  benevolence,  to  better  our  condition.  The  field  of 
such  an  inquiry  is  exceedingly  broad,  and  we  may  do  but  lit- 
tle more  than  enter  within  its  borders,  taking  care  to  keep 
in  mind  the  fact  that,  in  this  country  of  Protestant  freedom, 
we  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  religious  convictions  of  any 
man,  or  his  want  of  them,  except  in  so  far  as  they  may  be 
made  a  pretext  for  assaulting  the  Constitution  and  laws  of 
the  country.  To  an  attack  upon  these,  by  either  a  foreign 
or  domestic  foe,  we  are  not  yet  prepared  for  tame  submis- 
sion. 


DEVOTION  TO  LIBERTY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES.    161 


CHAPTER  VT. 

Claim  of  Divine  Power  over  Temporals  by  Pius  IX. — Its  Extent. — He  alone 
Defines  its  Limits.— Effect  of  this  in  the  United  States. — Principles  of  the 
Constitution  within  the  Jurisdiction  of  the  Papacy. — Germany,  Italy,  etc. 
— The  Pope  stirs  up  Insurrection  there. — The  Jesuits  Expelled. — Papists 
in  the  United  States  Justify  Resistance  to  the  Law  of  Germany. — Same 
Laws  in  the  United  States. — Effect  upon  Allegiance, — Bavarian  Protest. 
— Abuse  of  the  Confessional. — Power  of  Absolution. — The  Immoral  Bear- 
ings of  the  Confessional. 

Since  the  formation  of  our  Government,  there  has  been, 
among  the  people  of  the  United  States,  much  discussion — 
and  some  of  it  angry  and  exciting — involving  the  extent  and 
distribution  of  civil  power,  and  the  relations  between  the  Na- 
tional Government  and  the  States ;  yet  no  portion  of  them 
have  been  disposed  to  assail  the  fundamental  principles  upon 
which  our  institutions  are  founded.  Their  differences,  al- 
though often  radical  and  threatening,  have  hitherto  failed  to 
eradicate  from  their  minds  the  strong  attachment  they  have 
always  borne  to  that  form  of  popular  freedom  and  sovereign- 
ty which  constitutes  one  of  the  most  distinctive  features  in 
our  plan  of  government.  Even  sectional  jealousies  and  civil 
war,  wdth  all  their  terrible  and  deplorable  consequences,  and 
with  the  bad  passions  they  invariably  engender,  have  failed 
to  destroy  or  weaken  this  attachment;  and  to-day  there  is 
no  single  State  in  the  Union  which,  if  it  were  remodeling  its 
domestic  government,  would  not  preserve  with  the  most  sed- 
ulous care  the  separation  of  the  Church  from  the  State,  so 
that  the  people  should  remain  the  primary  source  of  all  civil 
power.  If  there  is  a  single  sentiment  which  has  universality 
among  all  the  lovers  of  our  free  institutions,  it  is  this.  They 
cling  to  it  with  affection  like  that  with  which  the  mother 
hugs  her  offspring  to  her  bosom.  And  it  is  something  of  a 
tax  upon  their  patience  when  they  see  this  great  principle 
assailed  at  the  bidding  oi  2,  foreign  power,  no  matter  w^heth- 

11 


162  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

er  that  power  is  clothed  in  the  robes  of  ecclesiastical  or  tem- 
poral royalty,  or  both  combined. 

Pope  Pius  IX.  has  been,  of  late  years,  exceedingly  fruitful 
of  encyclical  and  apostolic  letters,  intended  for  the  double 
purpose  of  warning  the  nations  and  advising  the  faithful. 
He  deemed  it  necessary  to  issue  one  when  he  rejected  the 
guarantees  for  his  spiritual  freedom  offered  him  by  the  Italian 
Government,  so  as  to  notify  the  world  of  the  reasons  which 
prompted  his  refusal.  It  was  dated  May  15th,  1871;  and 
while  less  comprehensive  than  that  which  accompanied  the 
Syllabus  in  1864,  it  is  equally  explicit  in  the  claim  that  the 
^^  civil  principality'''*  of  the  pope  was  conferred  upon  him,  not 
by  any  human  concessions,  but  by  "  divine  Providence!^''  He 
declares  that  "  all  the  prerogatives,  and  all  the  rights  of  au- 
thority, necessary  to  governing  the  Universal  Church  have 
been  received  by  us  [the  pope],  in  the  person  of  the  most 
blessed  Peter,  directly  from  God  himself.''''  Hence  he  can 
not  consent  to  "be  subjected  to  the  rule  of  another  prince ;''"' 
for  such  deference  to  human  authority  would  be  violative  of 
the  divine  decree.  His  reference  here  was  directly  to  Victor 
Emmanuel,  who,  by  seizing  upon  his  royal  crown,  had,  in  his 
eyes,  been  guilty  of  an  impious  and  sacrilegious  act,  punish- 
able by  excommunication.  But  he  looked  further  than  this. 
Realizing  the  necessity  of  stirring  up  the  faithful  all  over 
the  world  to  a  defense  of  his  temporal  sovereignty,  and,  pos- 
sibly, to  a  crusade  for  its  restoration,  he  availed  himself  of 
the  occasion  to  notify  them  that  the  wrongs  inflicted  upon 
him  "  have  redounded  on  the  whole  Christian  common- 
wealth f  that  is,  that  as  it  is  a  part  of  God's  irreversible  law 
that  he  should  remain  a  temporal  sovereign^  the  belief  to  that 
effect  has  become  an  essential  part  of  the  religious  faith  of 
the  Church,  w^hich  must  be  maintained  by  all  who  desire  to 
escape  the  papal  malediction  in  this  life,  and  secure  heaven 
in  the  next.  He  looked,  also,  to  the  consequences  of  this 
doctrine,  which,  logically,  give  precisely  the  same  universali- 
ty to  both  his  spiritual  and  temporal  power,  so  that  where 
one  is,  the  other  must  also  be.  If  God  gave  "  civil  principal- 
ity" to  Peter  in  order  that  he  might  establish  the  Church, 
then  the  conclusion  is  inevitable  that  the  same  civil  power 
which  Peter  possessed  is  necessary  to  govern  the  Church,  not 


UNIVERSALITY  OF  PAPAL  POWER.  163 

only  at  Rome,  but  elsewhere.  And  it  must  be  possessed  in 
the  same  degree  in  all  parts  of  the  world ;  for  whatever  is 
necessary  to  preserve  and  advance  Christianity  at  one  place 
is  equally  so,  for  the  same  purposes,  at  all  other  places.  The 
faith  and  the  Church,  as  papists  insist,  must  both  be  un- 
chanscins:.  The  whole  "  Christian  commonwealth  "  must  be 
so  wedded  together  as  to  become  a  perfect  unity.  This 
"commonwealth"  must  be  presided  over  by  the  same  prince 
— the  representative  of  Peter — governed  by  the  same  laws, 
and  held  responsible  to  the  same  tribunal,  in  the  entire  do- 
main of  faith  and  morals.  There  must  be  no  discordance 
anywhere,  from  centre  to  circumference.  As  Peter  had  a 
universal  primacy,  and  governed  all  Christians  as  the  royal 
head  of  the  Church,  he  could  not  be  a  foreign  prince  in  any 
part  of  the  *' Christian  commonwealth,"  but,  by  virtue  of  his 
divine  appointment  and  God's  unerring  will,  was  a  domestic 
prince  throughout  its  whole  extent !  If,  therefore,  the  pope 
could  not,  without  violating  the  Providential  decree,  consent 
to  be  governed  by  "  another  prince  "  at  Rome,  he  could  not 
consent  to  be  governed  by  another  prince,  or  government, 
or  any  earthly  power  whatsoever,  in  any  other  part  of  the 
world ;  or,  if  he  did,  he  would  forfeit  his  claim  to  universal- 
ity of  dominion,  such  as  he  alleges  Peter  to  have  possessed, 
and  destroy  the  unity  of  the  Church,  which  would  be  offen- 
sive to  God.  With  his  mind  persuaded  by  this  process  of 
reasoning,  the  pope  announces  his  independence  of  all  human 
authority,  and  his  supremacy  over  all  governments  and  peo- 
ples, in  this  strong  language : 

"Thinking  and  meditating  on  all  these  matters,  we  are 
bound  anew  to  enforce  and  to  profess,  what  we  have  often- 
times declared,  with  your  unanimous  consent,  that  the  civil 
sovereignty  of  the  Holy  See  has  been  given  to  the  Roman 
pontiff  by  a  singular  counsel  of  Divine  Providence ;  and  that 
it  is  of  necessity,  in  order  that  the  Roman  pontiff  may  exer- 
cise the  supreme  power  and  authority,  divinel)'  given  to  him 
by  the  Lord  Christ  himself,  of  feeding  and  ruling  the  entire 
flock  of  the  Lord  with  fullest  liberty,  and  may  consult  for  the 
greater  good  of  the  Church,  and  its  interests  and  needs,  that 
he  shall  never  he  subject  to  any  prince  or  civil  power.''"' {^) 

(')  Appletons'  "Annual  Cyclopaedia,"  1871,  pp.  689,  690. 


164  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

This  not  only  asserts  the  "  civil  sovereignty  "  of  the  pope 
as  a  matter  of  "  necessity,"  but  explains  that  necessity  by 
the  assumed  fact  that  it  is  conferred  by  Divine  Providence, 
with  supremacy  everywhere,  so  that  by  means  of  it  he  may 
rule  "  the  entire  flock  "  of  Christians  with  the  "  fullest  liber- 
ty," that  is,  without  the  interference  of  any  "civil  power" 
on  earth !  To  this  point,  every  thing  is  settled  without 
room  for  cavil  or  controversy.  Beyond  it  there  lies  this 
great  question,  full  of  interest  to  the  world,  and  especially 
to  the  Protestant  portion  of  it.  What  degree  of  "  civil  pow- 
er" must  the  pope  possess  —  how  far  shall  he  control  the 
management  of  civil  affairs — in  order  that  he  may  ride  na- 
tions and  peoples,  and  keep  them  in  the  line  of  duty  to  God 
and  the  papacy  ? 

When  it  is  said  that  the  pope  desires  to  absorb  in  his  own 
hands  all  the  powers  of  civil  government  elsewhere  than  in 
Rome,  the  accusation  is  probably  too  broad.  In  so  far  as 
the  laws  and  institutions  of  any  of  the  nations  regulate  and 
direct  the  ordinary  practical  working  of  government,  he 
could  have  no  special  motive  for  interference  with  them. 
As  it  regards  these,  it  could  make  but  little  difference  to  the 
papacy  whether  they  provided  for  one  thing  or  another;  or 
whether  the  machinery  was  in  the  hands  of  many  or  few. 
Or  whether  they  are  such  as  commonly  belong  to  a  mon- 
archy or  a  republic,  would,  perhaps,  not  concern  him  in  the 
least.  Judicial,  revenue,  postal,  land,  and  other  systems 
concerning  local  affairs  alone,  and  the  ministerial  duties  per- 
taining to  them,  are  all  matters  which  the  pope  might  be 
quite  willing  to  leave  undisturbed.  It  is  to  these,  undoubt- 
edly, that  he  and  his  followers  refer  when  they  talk  about 
the  affairs  which  legitimately  belong  to  human  governments. 
It  should  be  conceded  to  them,  inasmuch  as  the  declaration 
is  made  so  frequently  and  with  such  apparent  sincerity,  that 
with  these  they  do  not  desire  the  pope  to  interfere. 

But  the  question  assumes  an  entirely  different  aspect, 
when  the  policy  of  a  government,  or  its  constitutions  and 
laws,  touch  upon,  or  in  any  way  affect,  religion,  or  the  Church, 
or  the  papacy,  either  directly  or  indirectly.  All  these  in- 
volve inquiries  which,  by  the  papal  theory,  are  exclusively 
within  the  spiritual  jurisdiction  of  the  pope.    They  are  with- 


SUBORDINATION  OF  THE  STATE.  165 

in  the  domain  of  faith  and  morals ;  and  as  God  has  forbid- 
den any  human  governments  to  enter  upon  this  domain,  ev- 
ery thing  that  concerns  religion,  or  the  Church,  or  the  pa- 
pacy is  subject  to  the  sovereign  authority  of  the  pope,  as 
the  successor  of  Peter  !  He  alone  possesses  legitimate  pow- 
er to  decide  all  questions  of  this  nature ;  and,  therefore,  hu- 
man governments  can  not  take  cognizance  of  them  in  any 
form.  Whenever  they  do,  the  State  is  placed  above  the 
Church,  because  it  undertakes  to  interfere  with  the  faith. 
And  as  God  designed,  in  all  such  matters,  that  the  Church 
should  be  above  the  State,  all  papists  insist  that  whatever 
pertains  to  them  shall  be  separated  from  human  govern- 
ments and  given  in  charge  to  the  Church,  or  to  the  pope, 
who  is  its  infallible  head.  But  inasmuch  as  the  State  must 
necessarily  take  jurisdiction  of  many  things  within  the  do- 
main of  morals,  though  not  of  faith,  in  order  to  keep  society 
together  and  provide  for  the  protection  of  person  and  proper- 
ty, the  papal  theory  goes  to  the  extent  of  requiring  that,  in 
so  far  as  these  are  concerned,  the  spiritual  authority  of  the 
pope  shall  include  temporal  authority,  to  the  extent  of  en- 
abling him  to  prevent  any  infringement  upon  religion,  or 
the  rights  of  the  Church,  or  of  the  papacy.  To  this  end  it 
is  necessary  that  the  Church  and  the  State  should  be  united, 
so  that  whenever  the  State  invades  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Church,  it  may  be  brought  back,  peaceably,  if  possible,  but 
by  coercion,  if  necessary,  within  its  own  legitimate  sphere. 
Hence,  the  point  at  which  the  pope's  interference  with  the 
temporal  affairs  of  the  State  begins,  is  that  at  which,  accord- 
ing to  his  theory,  the  spiritual  and  temporal  jurisdictions 
unite  in  him.  So  long  as  the  State  stops  short  of  this  point, 
he  does  not  seek  to  impair  its  functions ;  but  when  it  reach- 
es it  and  seeks  to  go  beyond  it,  then  it  comes  in  contact 
with  the  sovereignty  which,  by  divine  right,  belongs  to  him, 
and  must  yield  submission  to  it  at  the  peril  of  violating  the 
law  of  God  !  This  sovereignty  is  conferred  upon  him,  as  it 
was  upon  Peter,  that  he  may  prevent  either  State  or  people 
from  violating  this  law. 

When  the  papal  authorities  are  pressed  to  the  wall,  they 
concede  that  "the  State  is  supreme  in  its  own  order^  and 
there  is  no  power  in  temporals  above  it."    But  for  fear  the 


166  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

concession  will  weaken  the  cause  of  the  papacy,  they  insist 
that  there  is  an  order  above  the  State,  and  to  which  it  is  sub- 
ordinate; that  is,  "the  spiritual  order  or  kingdom  of  God 
on  earth,  or  the  order  represented  by  the  Catholic  Church." 
With  them,  "the  Church  is  the  guardian  on  earth  of  the 
rights  of  God,"  and  belongs  to  a  higher  order  than  that  of 
the  State.  Therefore,  the  State  lies  in  the  "  subordinate " 
order,  and  the  Church  in  the  "  supreme."  She  sets  up,  they 
say,  no  claim  of  authority,  in  this  lower  order  in  which  the 
State  lies,  but  "  as  the  rights  of  God  are,  or  should  be,  held 
to  be  above  the  alleged  rights  of  the  empire,"  she  can  not 
surrender  any  thing  which  belongs  to  her,  as  the  custodian 
of  these  rights,  to  the  civil  powers.  "To  deny  this,"  says  a 
leading  and  able  periodical,  "  is  to  assert  political  atheism. 
We  must  obey  God  rather  than  man."(') 

This  leaves  us  to  discover  the  line  of  partition  between 
the  two  orders,  that  we  may  separate  the  higher  from  the 
lower,  and  thereby  leave  each  to  its  proper  jurisdiction. 
The  Church  represents  the  whole  "kingdom  of  God  on 
earth,"  and,  therefore,  all  "  the  rights  of  God  "  belong  to  her. 
Whatever  these  rights  are,  they  pertain  to  the  order  in 
which  the  Church  lies.  The  papist  does  not  hesitate  an  in- 
stant in  defining  them ;  the  pope  has  so  frequently  done  it 
for  him  as  to  leave  his  mind  in  no  doubt  about  them.  They 
necessarily  embrace,  in  his  view,  whatever  pertains  to  faith 
and  morals;  in  other  words,  all  that  concerns  the  Church, 
its  discipline,  its  government,  its  welfare,  and  its  progress 
toward  the  final  conquest  of  the  world.  They  include  also 
all  questions  of  faith,  every  thing  relating  to  morals,  and  the 
whole  multitude  of  duties  which  men  owe  to  God,  to  the 
Church,  and  to  society.  As  all  these  are  within  the  sphere 
of  the  "spiritual  order"  and  the  guardianship  of  the  pope, 
as  the  "  vicar  of  Christ,"  it  belongs  to  him  alone  to  define 
what  they  are.  In  doing  so,  he  exercises  his  infallibility, 
and  whatsoever  he  decides  must  be  accepted  as  absolutely 
true.  As  he  has  no  other  witness  but  himself,  stands  alone 
in  the  world,  and  settles  all  questions  concerning  the  extent 
and  nature  of  his  own  spiritual  jurisdiction,  so  it  depejids 

O  New  York  Tablet,  November  23d,  1872,  p.  8. 


THE  STATE  MUST  OBEY  THE  POPE.  167 

upon  him  to  declare  what  belongs  to  the  superior  or  spirit- 
ual, and  what  to  the  inferior  or  temporal,  order ;  what  to  the 
Church,  and  what  to  the  State.  The  papist  accepts  him  as 
standing  in  the  place  of  God  on  earth.  Therefore,  when  he 
makes  an  announcement  of  what  is  within  the  sphere  of  the 
spiritual  order,  that  must  be  accepted  by  him  as  belonging 
to  that  order,  and  as  being  removed  entirely  from  the  juris- 
diction of  the  temporal  order.  When  he  announces,  as  he 
has  done,  that  the  law  of  God  does  not  allow  freedom  of 
religious  faith  and  worship;  or  that  the  Church  can  not  tol- 
erate any  opinions  contrary  to  its  teaching;  or  that  free 
speech,  free  thought,  and  a  free  press  are  leading  the  world 
to  perdition;  or  that  Church  and  State  should  be  united; 
or  that  his  hierarchy  throughout  the  world  should  consti- 
tute a  privileged  class,  not  subject  to  the  laws  which  gov- 
ern others ;  or  any  of  those  other  innumerable  things  about 
which  he  has  written  so  frequently  and  so  much ;  then  all 
these  matters  are  removed  from  the  temporal  jurisdiction, 
and  the  State  must  not  dare  to  lay  her  unhallowed  hands 
upon  them.  They  belong  to  the  "  supreme  "  order,  in  which 
the  Church  stands  alone!  They  pertain  to  the  "rights  of 
God,"  of  which  the  pope  is  the  only  earthly  guardian ! 
Therefore,  upon  all  questions  of  this  nature,  according  to 
the  papal  theory,  the  Church — that  is,  the  pope — must  be 
superior  to  and  above  the  State,  so  that  the  State  may  be 
kept  within  its  own  inferior  order,  or  if  permitted  to  go  be- 
yond it,  then  that  whatsoever  it  does  shall  be  done  under 
the  supervision  of  the  spiritual  order,  and  in  conformity 
with  its  commands.  And  this  is  what  the  pope  and  the 
defenders  of  his  personal  infallibility  mean  when  they  talk 
about  keeping  the  Church  in  its  "swjoreme"  and  the  State  in 
its  "  subordinate^''  order.  Whenever  thcState  infringes  upon 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  Church,  it  must  be  taught  that  it  has 
wandered  out  of  its  legitimate  sphere.  And  when  warned 
of  its  transgression,  if  it  continues  to  lay  its  impious  hands 
upon  holy  things,  the  papal  lash  is  applied  without  mercy. 
History  is  crowded  with  instances  where  interdicts,  excom- 
munications, the  releasing  of  citizens  from  their  natural  alle- 
giance, and  pontifical  anathemas,  in  every  variety  of  form, 
have  been  visited  upon  the  heads  of  such  offenders.     We 


168  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

shall  become  familiar  with  some  of  these  at  the  proper  time, 
as  they  rise  up  before  us  in  that  marvelous  order  of  events 
which  mark  the  progress  of  the  papacy. 

Now,  when  we  come  to  make  a  practical  application  of 
this  papal  theory  to  our  own  national  and  state  policy,  so  as 
to  see  what  the  pope  meant  in  his  Encyclical  of  1871,  when 
he  said  that  he  must  have  the  "  fullest  liberty  "  to  rule  "  the 
entire  flock  of  the  Lord,"  and  that,  in  doing  so,  he  must  not 
be  subject  to  any  "  civil  power,"  there  is  no  difficulty  in  see- 
ing where,  in  his  view,  we  have  gone  beyond  the  limits  of 
the  temporal  order,  and  offended  against  the  Churcli  and  the 
true  faith.  All  our  constitutions,  national  and  state,  have 
forbidden  a  religious  establishment;  have  separated  the  af- 
fairs of  the  State  from  those  of  the  Church,  by  breaking  the 
old  bond  of  union  between  them  ;  have  left  every  man's  con- 
science entirely  free,  so  that  he  may  entertain  whatsoever 
form  of  religious  faith  it  shall  dictate,  or  none,  if  that  shall 
seem  to  him  consistent  with  duty;  have  provided  for  the  ut- 
most freedom  of  speech  and  of  the  press ;  have  made  all  the 
laws  dependent  upon  the  consent  of  the  people,  and  every 
citizen,  no  matter  what  his  condition,  obedient  to  them ;  and 
have  guarded  against  any  possible  encroachment  other  great 
principles  which  we  consider  as  belonging  to  the  very  funda- 
mentals of  civil  government.  Is  any  man  so  ignorant  as 
not  to  know  that  all  these  have  been  denounced,  not  only  by 
Pope  Pius  IX.,  but  by  many  of  his  predecessors?  In  his 
view,  they  involve  matters  which  do  not  legitimately  belong 
to  civil  government  in  the  narrow  and  contracted  sphere  in 
which  he  would  confine  it.  They  pertain  to  the  spiritual  or- 
der, and  are,  therefore,  within  the  circle  of  the  spiritual  ju- 
risdiction !  They  affect  the  true  faith,  infringe  upon  the 
rights  of  the  Church,  limit  the  authority  of  the  papacy,  cur- 
tail the  rightful  powers  of  the  hierarchy,  give  encourage- 
ment to  heresy  and  infidelity,  and  for  these  and  other  rea- 
son are  defiant  to  the  laws  of  God ;  therefore,  God  has  im- 
posed upon  him,  as  the  successor  of  Peter,  the  obligation  of 
declaring  that  they  are  impious  in  his  sight,  and  of  employ- 
ing all  the  weapons  in  the  pontifical  armory  for  their  exter- 
mination !  And  thus,  to  the  extent  of  being  enabled  to  regu- 
late all  these  matters  accordimx  to  the  command  of  God  and 


EXAMPLES  OF  PAPAL  INTERFERENCE.  169 

the  requirements  of  the  Church,  by  striking  them  from  our 
constitutions,  and  repealing  all  the  statutes  passed  for  their 
preservation,  he  considers  that  God  has  united  both  spirit- 
ual and  temporal  authority  in  his  hands,  and  that  the  "civil 
power"  of  this  country  has  no  just  right  to  place  the  slight- 
est impediment  in  his  way  !  The  nation  must  bow  in  humil- 
iation and  disgrace  before  him,  so  that  as  the  papal  car  rides 
in  triumph  over  it,  the  last  remembrance  of  the  work  of  our 
fathers  shall  be  crushed  out ! 

Already  the  censures  of  the  pope  rest  upon  whatsoever 
he  finds  in  the  civil  policy  of  all  the  nations  violative  of  the 
rights  of  the  Church,  or  of  God's  law,  as  he  interprets  it. 
The  governments  of  Italy,  Germany,  Spain,  Switzerland,  and 
Brazil  have  deemed  it  expedient  for  their  own  domestic  peace 
and  protection  to  adopt  certain  measures,  which  are  designed, 
among  other  things,  to  require  »very  citizen  to  obey  the  law 
of  the  state,  and  thereby  to  prevent  sedition.  It  can  not 
be  denied  that  they  had  the  right  to  pass  these  laws,  by  all 
the  principles  which  nations  recognize.  They  have  relation 
to  questions  which  concern  their  own  domestic  economy — 
questions  which  each  nation  has  the  exclusiv^e  right  to  de- 
cide for  itself.  The  laws  have  been  enacted  in  proper  form, 
and  with  the  usual  solemnity,  so  that  they  should  be  consid- 
ered as  expressing,  in  each  case,  the  will  of  the  nation.  Yet, 
because  they  affect  the  interest  of  the  Church,  have  taken 
from  some  of  its  favorite  orders  a  portion  of  their  temporal 
wealth,  have  prohibited  the  prelates  from  teaching  sedition, 
and  have  required  them  to  conform  to  the  law,  the  pope  has 
fulminated  against  these  states  the  most  terrible  anathemas. 
They  have  invaded  his  spiritual  jurisdiction,  because  the  laws 
they  have  enacted,  although  in  reference  to  temporalities,  af- 
fect the  affairs  of  the  papacy  and  weaken  its  power.  There- 
fore, Pius  IX.,  professedly  speaking  "in  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ "  and  "  by  the  authority  of  the  holy  apostles,  Peter 
and  Paul,"  admonishes  the  authors  of  these  measures  that 
they  should  "  take  pity  on  their  souls,"  and  not  continue  "  to 
treasure  up  for  themselves  wrath  against  the  day  of  wrath, 
and  of  the  revelation  of  the  just  judgment  of  God."  And 
not  only  does  he  thus  assume  jurisdiction  to  denounce  and 
condemn  the  authors  of  these  measures  of  civil  policy,  and 


170  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

the  measures  themselves,  but  he  compliments  and  applauds 
his  adherents  for  their  disobedience  to  the  laws,  although 
subjects  of  and  owing  allegiance  to  the  governments  enact- 
ing them !  Speaking  more  particularly  of  the  German  em- 
pire, he  says : 

"  Nay,  adding  calumny  and  insult  to  their  wrong,  they  are 
not  ashamed  to  charge  their  raging  persecution  as  the  fault 
of  Catholics,  because  the  prelates  and  clergy,  together  with 
the  faithful,  refuse  to  prefer  the  laws  and  orders  of  the  civil 
empire  to  the  most  holy  laws  of  their  God^  and  of  the  Church; 
and  so  will  not  leave  off  their  religious  duty." 

And  then  he  goes  on  to  talk  about  these  subjects  who  have 
refused  to  obey  the  laws  of  their  states  as  exhibiting  "  ad- 
mirable firmness,"  as  having  "  their  loins  girt  about  with 
truth,"  as  wearing  "the  breastplate  of  justice,"  as  "  dismayed 
by  no  dangers,  discouraged  liy  no  hardships,"  as  carrying  on 
a  "combat  for  the  Church,"  for  the  papacy,  "and  for  its  sa- 
cred rights  valiantly  and  earnestly,"  and  as  presenting  "  the 
power  of  a  compact  unity."(^)  Thus  he  gives  his  pontifical 
sanction  and  approval  to  what  every  nation  on  earth  considers 
disloyalty;  but  what  he  considers  right  and  justifiable,  be- 
cause the  obnoxious  laws,  although  in  reference  to  temporal 
affairs,  impair  his  pontifical  rights,  and,  consequently,  vio- 
late the  law  of  God.  He  insists  that  his  spiritual  sceptre 
extends  over  all  these  nations,  and  that  he  has  a  right  to  re- 
lease their  citizens  from  their  proper  allegiance  to  their  do- 
mestic laws,  whenever,  in  his  opinion,  those  laws  shall  en- 
croach upon  his  own  personal  rights,  or  the  rights  of  the 
Church,  as  he  shall  declare  them !  And  he  thereby  furnishes 
a  practical  application  of  his  theory  of  the  spiritual  power, 
which  is  neither  more  nor  less  than  a  denial  to  the  state  of 
any  jurisdiction  over  even  temporal  matters,  when,  in  his 
judgment,  they  concern  religion,  the  Church,  the  papacy,  or 
any  thing  within  the  unlimited  domain  of  faith  and  morals ! 

These  papal  censures  rest,  of  course,  most  heavily  upon 
such  nations  and  peoples  as  have  declared,  by  the  forms  of 

(')  This  "Allocution"  of  Pope  Pius  IX.  is  dated  December  23d,  1872, 
and  will  be  found  at  length  in  the  New  York  Freeman! s  Journal  and  Catho- 
lic Register  for  January  18th,  1873.  Also  in  Appletons'  "Annual  Cyclo- 
paedia," 1872,  p.  714. 


THE  UNITED  STATES  THE  GREATEST  OFFENDER.    171 

their  civil  institutions,  that  the  Church  shall  have  no  share 
whatever  in  matters  pertaining  to  the  civil  jurisdiction,  or 
in  the  government  of  temporalities.  All  such  nations  have, 
according  to  him,  committed  the  sin  of  infidelity,  which  they 
aggravate  when  they  require  his  hierarchy  to  obey  all  the 
laws,  and  refuse  them  permission,  as  in  Germany,  Italy, 
Spain,  Switzerland,  and  Brazil,  to  set  up  an  ecclesiastic  em- 
pire within  the  state,  with  a  ''^foreign  prince "  to  rule  it. 
Among  these  nations  the  United  States  occupies  the  most 
prominent  position.  Our  Government  has  always  persevered 
in  maintaining  measures  which  the  popes  have  considered 
prejudicial  to  the  interests  and  welfare  of  the  Church  ;  and 
has  always  denied  the  authority  which  they  claim  to  belong 
to  them  by  divine  right.  By  means  of  these  and  kindred 
matters,  we  have,  in  the  eyes  of  the  papacy,  become  egre- 
gious offenders.  We  have  made  our  institutions  infidel  and 
heretical.  We  have  refused  to  accept  the  papal  policy  of 
government  in  preference  to  our  own.  We  have  kept  the 
State  above  the  Church  in  all  matters  concerning  temporal- 
ities. We  have  failed  to  give  any  form  of  ecclesiasticism  the 
support  of  law,  or  to  confer  any  exclusive  privileges  upon 
the  hierarchy.  Hence,  the  followers  of  the  pope  are  availing 
themselves  of  our  Protestant  toleration,  in  order  to  assure 
him,  by  assailing  such  principles  of  our  government  as  he 
has  condemned,  how  completely  they  have  submitted  their 
intellects  and  wills  to  his  dictation.  Not  having  been  per- 
mitted, thus  far,  to  restore  the  temporal  power  of  the  pope 
at  Rome,  and  maddened  by  his  downfall  to  an  extreme  de- 
gree of  violence,  they  have  converted  a  large  portion  of  their 
Church  literature  into  denunciatory  assaults  upon  our  consti- 
tution and  laws,  possibly  with  the  hope  that  when  their  work 
of  exterminating  Protestantism  has  ended,  a  "Ao^y  empire^"* 
with  the  pope  as  its  sovereign,  may  rise  upon  the  ruins  of  our 
free  institutions.  While  with  one  breath  they  tell  us  that  it 
is  false  to  say  they  desire  the  pope  to  interfere  with  our  civil 
afiairs,  with  the  next  they  assail  our  Constitution,  and  inso- 
lently declare  that  we  do  not  ourselves  understand  what  its 
fundamental  principles  are.  They  actively  employ  their  un- 
tiring energies  and  acute  intellects  in  the  work  of  recon- 
structing our  Government,  so  as  to  turn  over  to  the  eccle- 


172  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWEK. 

siastical  jurisdiction  the  very  matters  which  our  fathers  in- 
tentionally removed  from  it,  notwithstanding  that  removal 
has,  thus  far  in  our  history,  contributed,  in  an  eminent  de- 
gree, to  our  strength  and  progress  as  a  nation.  Examples 
of  this  are  far  more  numerous  than  is  generally  supposed. 
The  relations  between  the  pope  and  his  hierarchical  adher- 
ents are  so  intimate  and  direct,  that  he  has  but  to  give  the 
word  of  command,  and  they  become  immediately  emulous  of 
each  other  in  the  exhibition  of  their  obedience  and  submis- 
sion. His  voice  they  consider  to  be  the  voice  of  God,  and 
wheresoever  he  requires  them  to  strike,  there  they  direct 
their  blows.  They  rest  neither  night  nor  day;  for  the  vigi- 
lance of  the  Jesuit  never  sleeps,  and  nothing  can  extinguish 
his  hatred  of  religious  liberty. 

The  Catholic  Worlds  in  the  number  for  September,  1871, 
contains  a  leading  article,  entitled  "  The  Reformation  not 
Conservative."  It  appeared  so  soon  after  the  pope's  Encyc- 
lical of  that  year  that  it  must  have  been  intended  as  a  re- 
sponse to  his  fervid  anticipations  of  ultimate  sovereignty 
over  the  world.  The  author  professes  to  accept  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States  *'  as  originally  understood  and 
intended ;"  that  is,  as  he  interprets  it,  in  a  sense  which  de- 
nies the  sovereignty  of  the  people^  or  that  the  Government 
holds  from  them,  or  is  responsible  to  them !  He  repudiates 
entirely,  and  with  indignation,  "^Ae  Protestant  principle,^'* 
from  which  this  popular  sovereignty  is  derived,  because  he 
considers  it  to  be  Jacohinism!  And  from  these  premises 
he  reaches  the  following  disloyal  conclusions  in  reference  to 
the  Constitution : 

" . . . .  but  as  it  is  interpreted  by  the  liberal  and  sectarian 
journals  that  are  doing  their  best  to  revolutionize  it,  and  is 
beginning  to  be  interpreted  by  no  small  portion  of  the  Amer- 
ican people,  or  is  interpreted  by  the  Protestant  principle^  so 
widely  diffused  among  us,  and  in  the  sense  of  European  lib- 
eralism and  Jacobinism,  we  do  not  accept  it,  or  hold  it  to 
be  ANY  government  at  all,  or  as  capable  of  performing 
any  of  the  proper  functions  of  government ;  and  if  it  con- 
tinues to  be  interpreted  by  the  revolutionary  principle  of 
Protestantism^  it  is  sure  to  fail — to  lose  itself  either  in  the 
supremacy  of  the  mob  or  in  military  despotism;  and  doom 


THE  CONSTITUTION  CONDEMNED.  173 

US,  like  unhappy  France,  to  alternate  between  them,  with  the 
mob  uppermost  to-day,  and  the  despot  to-morrow.  Protest- 
antism^ like  the  heathen  barbarisms  which  Catholicity  sub- 
dued, lacks  the  element  of  order,  because  it  rejects  authority 
[the  authority  of  the  pope],  and  is  necessarily  incompetent 
to  maintain  real  liberty  or  civilized  society.  Hence  it  is  we 
so  often  say  that  if  the  American  Republic  is  to  be  sus- 
tained and  preserved  at  all,  it  must  he  by  the  rejection  of  the 
principle  of  the  Reformation,  and  the  acceptance  of  the  Cath- 
olic principle  by  the  American  people.  Protestantism  can 
preserve  neither  liberty  from  running  into  license  and  law- 
lessness, nor  authority  from  running  into  despotism."(*) 

What  is  here  meant  by  such  expressions  as  the  ^''Protest- 
ant principle^''  the  "  revolutionary  principle  of  Protestant- 
ism^'^ and  the  ^^ principles  of  the  Reformation  V  Manifestly, 
they  are  used  as  equivalent  terms  to  express  the  same  idea — 
that  our  Government  derives  its  powers  from  the  people,  who, 
in  the  revolutionary  contests  with  monarchy  which  followed 
the  Reformation,  successfully  resisted  the  divine  right  of 
kings,  and  entered  upon  the  experiment  of  governing  them- 
selves. Until  this  revolution  began  they  had  no  voice  in 
the  management  of  public  affairs,  and  were  not  consulted 
about  the  laws.  Kings  governed  by  divine  right,  and  the 
papacy,  under  the  same  claim  of  right,  was  one  of  the  great, 
if  not  the  greatest,  controlling  powers  in  the  world.  But 
new  light  was  shed  by  the  Reformation,  and  new  forms  of 
government  began  to  arise.  Protestantism  being  its  natu- 
ral fruit,  had  its  influence  in  their  formation ;  and  inasmuch 
as  all  its  teachings  and  tendencies  inculcate  the  elevation  of 
individuals  and  the  progress  of  society,  this  divine  right  of 
government  was  denied,  and  the  right  of  self-government  es- 
tablished. The  authority  of  kings  was  dispensed  with,  and 
the  authority  of  the  people  substituted  for  it.  No  institu- 
tions in  the  world  guard  and  guarantee  this  great  principle 
better  than  ours.  The  constitution  declares  it  in  its  pream- 
ble, and  protects  it  in  all  its  parts.  The  most  efficient  means 
of  protection  afforded  by  it  are  found  especially  in  those  pro- 
visions which  prohibit  an  establishment  of  religion,  and  the 

(*)  7%e  (Ca^AoZtc  TFbr/c?,  September,  1871,  vol.  xiii.,  p.  736. 


174  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

creation  of  privileged  classes,  and  provide  for  equality  of 
citizenship  and  rights,  the  universality  of  law,  the  freedom 
of  conscience,  of  speech,  and  of  the  press.  These  are  the 
"  Protestant "  and  "  revolutionary  "  principles  to  which  this 
author  refers.  They  are  the  former,  because  they  are  op- 
posed to  the  principles  of  the  papacy;  the  latter,  because 
they  place  the  authority  of  government  in  the  hands  of  the 
people,  rather  than  in  those  of  a  monarch.  By  our  fathers, 
who  established  the  Government ;  by  all  those  who  have  been 
intrusted  with  its  management  from  the  beginning ;  and  by 
the  great  body  of  the  people  of  the  United  States,  our  con- 
stitution has  been  always  and  invariably  interpreted  in  the 
light  of  these  principles  and  facts.  We  have  differed  among 
ourselves  about  many  things,  but  not  about  these  great  prin- 
ciples. And  we  now  cherish  them  none  the  less  because  it 
required  revolution  to  establish  them. 

This  papal  writer  is  not  so  ignorant  as  to  be  uninformed 
about  our  history.  He  tells  us,  however,  that,  as  we  under- 
stand and  interpret  our  constitution,  Ae,  though  professedly 
an  American  citizen,  vnll  not  '•^  accept  it  J''  that  it  is  no  ''^gov- 
ernment at  alV — a  mere  rope  of  sand,  and  not  "capable  of 
performing  any  of  the  proper  functions  of  government."  If 
he  took  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  it  in  the  Protestant  sense, 
he  must  have  cherished  treason  in  his  heart  against  it  at  the 
time.  If  he  took  it  in  any  other  sense,  he  committed  perju- 
ry in  the  eye  of  the  law.  Be  this  as  it  may,  he  stands  now 
before  the  country  as  the  confessed  enemy  of  the  great  fun- 
damental principles  which  the  Constitution  was  designed  to 
perpetuate.  And  what  are  the  avowed  grounds  of  his  oppo- 
sition? These,  and  nothing  less:  That  the  right  of  self-gov- 
ernment in  the  people  is  only  the  '''■supremacy  of  the  moh;"*^ 
that  a  government  founded  upon  that  right  "lacks  the  ele- 
me7it  of  order ^"^  and  can  not  maintain  liberty  or  society  "  be- 
cause it  rejects  authority ^  What  authority  ?  The  author- 
ity of  kings — of  those  who  govern  by  divine  right.  The 
people,  said  Dr.  Brownson,  were  born  to  be  governed,  not  to 
govern;  they  need  a  master!  And  this  writer  instructs  us 
where  we  may  find  such  a  master ;  "  by  the  rejection  of  the 
principle  of  the  Reformation,  and  the  acceptance  of  the  Cath- 
olic principle !"     Then  authority  will  triumph,  the  right  of 


THE  PAPACY  IN  GERMANY.  176 

self-government  will  be  gone,  the  divine  right  be  re-estab- 
lished, the  fundamental  principles  of  our  Government  will  be 
lost  forever ;  we  shall  have  an  established  Church  and  a  priv- 
ileged hierarchy,  and  no  more  freedom  of  conscience,  of 
speech,  and  of  the  press ;  the  papacy  will  win  its  grand  tri- 
umph, and  the  pope  become  our  master ! 

But  the  questions  we  are  discussing  do  not  involve  the 
necessity  of  dwelling  upon  these  consequences,  which  are  not 
likely  to  be  visited  upon  us,  unless  some  power  shall  arise 
sufficiently  overwhelming  to  arrest  the  career  of  national 
progress.  They  have  to  do,  rather,  with  the  position  of  the 
papal  defenders  in  this  country,  the  motives  which  influence 
them,  and  the  principles  upon  which  they  justify  their  com- 
bined assault  upon  institutions  to  which,  in  their  present 
form,  the  greater  part  of  them  have  taken  oaths  of  alle- 
giance. 

Wherein  does  the  difference  consist,  in  principle,  between 
them  and  those  citizens  of  Germany  who  have  been  so  high- 
ly extolled  for  their  resistance  to  the  laws  of  their  Govern- 
ment ?  The  particular  measures  of  civil  policy  which  have 
invited  the  resistance  are  not  alike,  but  the  principle  is  the 
same  in  all  the  cases.  It  is  neither  more  nor  less  than  opposi- 
tion to  law,  because  it  aff*ects  the  Church,  by  denying  that  the 
pope  has  any  right,  either  divine  or  human,  to  interfere  with 
the  domestic  and  temporal  policy  of  the  government.  The 
pope  claims  that,  by  virtue  of  authority  conferred  upon  him 
by  Divine  Providence,  he  has  the  spiritual  right  to  release 
these  disobedient  citizens  of  Germany  from  their  allegiance 
to  their  own  Government,  and  that  any  resistance  to  this  by 
that  Government  is  a  violation  of  God's  law.  He  teaches 
that  their  "first  duty"  is  to  him, because  he  represents  God; 
and  that  if,  in  paying  this  duty,  they  violate  the  laws  of 
their  state,  they  stand  justified  before  God,  because  the  spir- 
itual order  is  above  the  temporal.  And  thus  he  erects  an  ec- 
clesiastical government  within  the  temporal,  demanding  obe- 
dience upon  the  ground  that  God  did  not  design  that  the 
pope  should  be  subject  to  any  ''''  civil  power''''  on  earth  !  He 
holds  out  the  same  justification  to  his  followers  in  the  Uni- 
ted States,  encouraging  their  opposition  to  principles  of  our 
Government  far  more  fundamental  than  any  assailed  in  Eu- 


176  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

rope,  and  rests  it  upon  the  same  claim  of  divine  power.  As 
"  vicar  of  Christ "  he  dispenses  the  obligation  of  allegiance, 
and  turns  loose  his  ecclesiastical  army  upon  every  govern- 
ment on  earth  which  dares  to  establish  any  constitution,  or 
pass  any  law,  or  do  any  act  that  shall  curtail  his  authority 
or  that  of  his  hierarchy,  or  shall  prevent  the  papacy  from 
becoming,  what  he  claims  for  it,  the  universal  governing 
power.  And  writers  like  the  author  of  the  foregoing  article 
in  The  Catholic  World^  perfectly  obedient  and  submissive  to 
him,  enter  with  alacrity  upon  the  task  of  assailing  the  very 
fundamental  principles  of  our  Government,  as  if  the  Ameri- 
can people  were  either  insensible  to  their  perfidy,  or  ready 
to  become  the  impassive  dupes  of  their  intrigues. 

That  these  papal  followers  in  the  United  States  occupy  a 
position  substantially  analogous  to  that  of  those  in  Germany, 
who  are  justified  by  the  pope  for  resistance  to  the  civil  pow- 
er, is  easily  demonstrable.  Take,  for  example,  the  relations 
between  them  and  the  Government  of  the  empire.  Before 
the  unification  of  Germany,  Prussia  was  a  Protestant  nation. 
Like  all  other  Protestant  nations,  its  laws  gave  equal  protec- 
tion to  every  denomination  of  Christians.  In  so  far  as  they 
protected  the  rights  of  conscience,  they  recognized  no  differ- 
ence between  the  Lutheran  and  other  Protestant  churches, 
and  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  Perfect  freedom  of  faith 
and  worship  was  not  only  conferred,  but  guaranteed  to  all. 
Education  was  compulsory,  but  each  of  the  churches  was 
permitted,  in  addition  to  the  education  required  by  the  state, 
to  impress  the  principles  of  its  own  faith  upon  the  minds  of 
the  young  who  were  under  its  charge.  In  the  Roman  Cath- 
olic schools  the  religion  of  that  Church  was  taught,  without 
any  prohibition  by  the  state.  Papal  infallibility  had  not 
then  been  decreed,  and,  consequently,  was  not  a  necessary 
part  of  that  religion.  It  was,  undoubtedly,  maintained  by 
the  Jesuit  or  Ultramontane  party,  but  this  constituted  so 
small  a  portion  of  the  great  body  of  the  Church  in  Prussia, 
that  the  Government  was  not  disposed  to  hold  it  responsible, 
as  a  whole,  for  the  doctrines  of  this  party.  It  was  well  un- 
derstood that  it  would  elevate  the  pope  to  a  condition  of  su- 
periority over  the  state,  if  the  power  to  do  so  were  given  it ; 
but  it  made  so  little  progress  in  that  direction,  on  account  of 


THE  FRANCO-GERMAN  WAR.  177 

the  natural  tendency  of  the  German  mind  toward  freedom 
of  thought,  as  to  excite  no  serious  apprehensions  on  the  part 
of  the  Government.  And,  consequently,  under  the  Prussian 
kingdom  there  was  no  attempt  to  interfere  with  the  Roman 
Catholic  schools,  or  with  the  Church,  or  with  the  ecclesias- 
tical jurisdiction  of  its  hierarchy. 

This  harmony  was  disturbed  by  two  of  the  most  impor- 
tant events  of  the  present  period :  the  decree  of  infallibility, 
and  the  war  between  Prussia  and  France.  These  two  events 
occurred  so  nearly  together  that  there  would  seem  to  have 
been  some  intimate  relationship  between  them.  The  war 
was  designed  on  the  part  of  Napoleon  III.  to  settle  the  su- 
periority of  the  Latin  over  the  Teutonic  race,  and  the  decree 
to  make  the  papacy  supreme  over  all  the  nations.  So  far 
from  the  former  of  these  objects  having  been  accomplished, 
the  contest  resulted  in  German  unification ;  in  not  only  con- 
verting the  kingdom  of  Prussia  into  the  German  empire,  but 
in  making  it  one  of  the  strongest  and  most  compact  military 
powers  in  the  world.  Whether,  during  the  struggle,  there 
was  any  effort  on  the  part  of  the  ultramontane  prelates  and 
clergy  to  convert  it  into  a  religious  war,  by  persuading  the 
Roman  Catholics  of  Germany  into  the  belief  that  the  tri- 
umph of  the  true  faith  would  inevitably  follow  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  Protestant  Government  of  Prussia,  does  not  bear 
especially  upon  our  present  inquiry.  It  is,  however,  the  fact, 
that,  after  the  close  of  the  war,  when  the  civil  authorities 
entered  upon  the  duty  of  consolidating  the  empire,  they 
found  that  the  effect  of  the  decree  of  infallibility  was  to 
make  the  Roman  Catholic  religion  in  the  empire  a  very  dif- 
ferent thing  from  what  it  had  previously  been  in  the  king- 
dom. A  considerable  number  of  the  German  prelates  had 
voted  "  non  placet^''  that  is,  against  the  decree,  in  the  Later- 
an  Council,  but  they  were  unable  to  resist  the  power  and 
pressure  of  the  papacy,  and  yielded  their  assent  under  ul- 
tramontane dictation  and  threats.  The  necessary  effect  was 
that  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  in  Germany  became  subject 
to  this  same  dictation  ;  or,  perhaps,  it  is  moipe  proper  to  say, 
that  the  ultramontanes  immediately  inaugurated  measures  to 
put  it  under  the  dominion  of  the  papacy.  One  of  the  most 
efficient  of  these  was  the  assertion  of  the  right  to  teach  the 

12 


178  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

doctrine  of  papal  infallibility  in  the  public  schools  of  the 
state,  and  thereby  impress  the  minds  of  the  Roman  Catho- 
lic youth  with  the  idea  that,  instead  of  owing  their  "  first 
duty  "  to  Germany,  they  owed  it  to  the  pope ;  from  whom, 
notwithstanding  any  law  of  the  state,  they  were  bound  to 
accept  every  thing  concerning  religion  and  the  Church  as 
absolutely  and  infallibly  true.  They  put  themselves,  ac- 
cordingly, in  direct  hostility  to  the  civil  authorities  of  the 
empire,  and,  by  doing  so,  forced  large  numbers  of  their 
Church  who  desired  to  remain  obedient  to  the  laws,  and 
who  were  opposed  to  the  doctrine  of  infallibility,  to  sepa- 
rate themselves  from  the  papal  organization  under  the  name 
of  "  Old  Catholics."  Among  these  were  some  of  the  most 
distinguished  and  learned  professors  of  the  German  uni- 
versities, who  were  followed  by  many  of  their  pupils,  and 
by  others,  who  were  convinced  by  the  force  of  their  argu- 
ments that  if  they  put  themselves  in  the  power  of  the 
ultramontanes,  and  accepted  the  doctrine  of  the  pope's  in- 
fallibility, they  would  occupy,  necessarily,  a  position  of  an- 
tagonism to  the  Government.  All  these  were  excommuni- 
cated by  the  pope,  and  one  of  the  questions  which  the  Gov- 
ernment had  to  meet  was  to  decide  upon  the  effect  of  this 
act.  The  pope  and  the  ultramontanes  insisted  that  it  cut 
off  all  the  excommunicated  from  Christian  intercourse,  and 
from  the  right  to  perform  any  church  functions  whatever. 
The  public  authorities  thought  and  decided  otherwise,  and 
gave  thera  the  full  protection  of  the  law  in  maintaining 
their  organization ;  which  they  claimed  to  be  precisely  in 
accordance  with  that  which  prevailed  in  the  Church  in  the 
ages  before  it  was  corrupted  by  the  papacy.  Other  events 
contributed  to  make  the  breach  still  wider.  There  is  a 
military  church  at  Cologne,  where  a  priest,  who  refused  to 
accept  infallibility,  and  was  under  the  ban  of  excommunica- 
tion, offered  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass.  For  this  the  church 
was  placed  under  interdict  by  the  ultramontane  chaplain- 
general  of  the  army,  who  claimed  that,  by  virtue  of  his 
episcopal  office,  he  had  the  right  to  prohibit  the  use  of  the 
building  for  any  other  worship  than  that  which  had  the  ap- 
proval of  the  pope.  For  this  he  was  tried  by  a  military 
<jourt  for  a  violation  of  the  articles  of  war,  and  his  episco- 


.  MEASURES  RESISTED  IN  GERMANY.  179 

pal  functions  suspended.  The  Bishop  of  Ermeland  excom- 
municated two  professors  of  theology  as  apostates,  and  the 
minister  of  worship  denied  to  him  the  right  to  cut  them  off 
from  Christian  communion  without  the  consent  of  the  state. 
The  bishop,  still  defying  the  authorities,  was  deprived  of  his 
government  salary.  The  Emperor  William  sent  Cardinal 
Hohenlohe  as  an  embassador  to  the  court  of  the  pope,  and 
the  pope  refused  to  receive  him.  The  excitement  became 
more  and  more  intensified  every  day,  until  the  Government, 
convinced  that  the  Jesuits  were  the  prime  movers  in  all  the 
acts  of  resistance  to  its  authority,  issued  a  proclamation, 
July  4th,  1872,  expelling  all  foreign  Jesuits  from  the  empire, 
and  providing  that  those  who  were  natives  should  have 
their  places  of  residence  prescribed  to  them.  This  was 
done  pursuant  to  a  law  passed  by  the  German  Reichstag, 
which  was  ultimately  interpreted  to  embrace  other  monastic 
orders  and  congregations  which  had  yielded  to  the  press- 
ure of  ultramontane  influence,  such  as  the  Redemptorists, 
the  Lazarists,  the  Trappists,  the  Christian  Brothers,  etc. 
All  this  was  called  persecution,  of  course,  and  yet  these 
acts  of  the  Government  were  domestic  remedies  against 
disloyalty.  They  were  adopted  in  defense  of  the  laws  of 
the  state,  and  it  is  in  that  view  alone  that  they  are  now 
considered.  Whether  they  were  politic  or  not  was  exclu- 
sively for  the  German  Government  to  decide.  But  the 
pope  and  the  ultramontanes  did  not  so  regard  them.  In 
their  view  they  were  an  invasion  of  the  pope's  jurisdic- 
tion. They  demanded  that,  as  the  pope  represented  God, 
and  the  Emperor  William  represented  the  state,  the  latter 
should  permit  the  former  to  enter  his  dominions  as  a  do- 
mestic prince,  and  dictate  what  laws  concerning  the  Church, 
its  faith,  and  its  priesthood  should  be  executed,  and  what 
should  be  disobeyed!  That  was,  and  is  to-day,  the  sole 
question  of  controversy  between  the  German  empire  and 
the  papacy,  just  as  it  is  between  the  papacy  and  all  other 
governments,  the  United  States  included.  Although  the  is- 
sue grows  out  of  different  measures  of  government  policy, 
it  is  substantially  the  same  everywhere.  And,  therefore, 
when  the  pope  accompanied  his  claim  of  "  secular  prince- 
dom'''' with  the  sentiments  already  quoted  from  his  Encyc- 


180  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

lical  of  December  23d,  18'72,  he  intended  that  the  encour- 
agement he  thereby  gave  the  violations  of  the  law  in  Ger- 
many should  equally  apply  to  all  other  governments  where 
the  rights  of  the  papacy,  as  he  has  announced  them,  are 
either  denied  or  violated.  Governments  have  no  more  im- 
portant question  to  deal  with  than  this:  their  existence 
may  depend  upon  it.  Whatever,  or  however  varied,  their 
domestic  policy  may  be,  they  should  decide  it  for  them- 
selves. The  moment  they  allow  a  foreign  power  to  dictate 
it,  in  any  essential  particular,  that  moment  they  lose  their 
independence  and  sink  into  imbecility. 

While  the  American  people  have  no  just  right  to  concern 
themselves  about  the  internal  policy  of  the  German  empire 
(it  being  fully  competent  to  manage  its  own  affairs),  it  is  im- 
portant that  they  should  know  how  far  the  Roman  Catho- 
lic mind  in  this  country  is  likely  to  be  affected  by  the  teach- 
ings of  the  pope  in  reference  to  those  who  have  so  offen- 
sively violated  its  laws.  If  his  power  over  the  sentiments 
and  opinions  of  his  followers  in  the  United  States  is  as 
great  as  it  is  there — and  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  it  is 
not — then,  although  there  may  be  no  immediate  open  re- 
sistance to  the  principles  of  our  Government  which  he  has 
condemned,  the  fact  exists  that  there  is  a  cherished  purpose 
to  make  it  whenever  there  is  a  reasonable  promise  of  suc- 
cess. We  may  not  fear  resistance,  but  are  always  better 
prepared  to  meet  it  when  aware  that  it  is  contemplated. 
The  seeds  of  disease  are  more  easily  removed  before  they 
have  become  diffused  throughout  the  system.  One  of  the 
fathers  of  the  Republic  gave  us  this  admonition  : 

"Against  the  insidious  wiles  of  foreign  influence,  I  con- 
jure you  to  believe  me,  fellow-citizens,  the  jealousy  of  a  free 
people  ought  to  be  constantly  awake,  since  history  and  ex- 
perience prove  that  foreign  influence  is  one  of  the  most 
baneful  foes  of  republican  government." (^) 

And  one  of  the  great  men  of  our  own  times,  contem- 
plating the  possible  dangers  which  might  result  from  even 
the  foreign  ownership  of  stock  in  our  moneyed  institutions, 
said: 


(^)  Washington's  Farewell  Address. 


GERMAN  DISLOYALTY  APPROVED.  181 

"  Of  the  course  which  would  be  pursued  by  a  bank  al- 
most wholly  owned  by  the  subjects  of  a  foreign  power,  and 
managed  by  those  whose  interests,  if  not  affections,  would 
run  in  the  same  direction,  there  can  be  no  doubt.  All  its 
operations  within  would  be  in  aid  of  hostile  fleets  and  ar- 
mies without.  Controlling  our  currency,  receiving  our  pub- 
lic moneys,  and  holding  thousands  of  our  citizens  in  depend- 
ence, it  would  be  more  formidable  and  dangerous  than  the 
naval  and  military  power  of  the  enemy."(^) 

The  nation  did  not  stand  in  the  immediate  presence  of 
any  danger  from  foreign  influence  when  these  sentiments 
were  uttered.  Their  distinguished  authors  looked  to  pre- 
cautionary measures  alone.  And  how  much  more  "  formida- 
ble and  dangerous  "  than  a  few  stockholders  in  a  moneyed 
corporation  are  a  multitude  of  men,  moved  by  a  single  im- 
pulse, compacted  together  by  a  common  sentiment,  and 
ready,  at  the  dictation  of  a  "  foreign  prince,"  to  aim  their 
blows,  openly  or  secretly,  at  such  principles  of  our  Govern- 
ment as  he  may  condemn,  upon  the  plea  that  they  belong 
to  the  spiritual  order,  over  which  God  has  placed  the  pope 
as  the  sole,  sovereign,  and  infallible  judge? 

On  the  25th  day  of  March,  1873,  "a  very  large  meeting" 
of  "  the  Catholic  Germans  of  Philadelphia  "  was  held  in  that 
city.  Its  avowed  object  was  "  for  the  purpose  of  placing 
upon  record  their  sympathy  with  their  oppressed  and  per- 
secuted fellow-Catholics  of  Germany,  and  to  congrcitidate 
them  and  their  noble  hierarchy  upon  the  heroic  stand  they 
have  taken  in  the  face  of  the  persecuting  Government ;''"' 
that  is,  upon  their  resistance  to  laws  regularly  and  legally 
enacted.  The  Bishops  of  Philadelphia,  Scranton,  and  Har- 
risburg  were  all  present  at  this  meeting,  accompanied  by 
"  a  large  number  of  the  reverend  clergy."  Clapping  of 
hands,  hearty  cheers,  and  strains  of  music  enlivened  the  oc- 
casion. Eloquent  addresses  were  delivered ;  but  one,  by  the 
"pastor  of  St.  Bonifacius,"  produced  a  "sweeping  effect" 
and  great  enthusiasm,  because  of  its  castigation  of  "  Bis- 
marck, Garibaldi,  and  Co.,"  its  praise  of  the  Jesuits,  and 
its  adulation  of  Pope  Pius  IX.,  whom  he  called  "the  fear- 

(®)  Jackson's  Veto  of  the  Bank  of  the  United  States. 


182  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

less  Hildebrand  of  the  nineteenth  century !"  When  the 
proper  degree  of  excitement  had  been  produced,  resolutions, 
with  an  explanatory  preamble,  were  adopted.  They  enumer- 
ate the  terrible  persecutions  which  had  been  visited  upon 
their  "fellow-Catholics"  in  Germany,  as  follows:  1.  The  ex- 
pulsion of  the  Jesuits.  2.  The  encroachment  on  the  con- 
stitutional rights  of  the  *' German  Catholic  hierarchy" 
by  retaining  "  in  their  positions  and  dignities "  the  "  Old 
Catholics,"  whom  they  denounce  as  "  faithless  sons  of  the 
Church."  3.  The  encroachment  upon  the  rights  of  con- 
science by  keeping  those  who  had  abandoned  the  faith  in 
charge  of  the  public  schools.  4.  The  "  unchristiauizing  the 
schools."  In  view  of  these  arbitrary  and  tyrannical  meas- 
ures, they  express  their  sympathy  for  their  German  breth- 
ren as  "  Germany's  truest  sons  and  most  faithful  citizens !" 
because  they  obey  the  pope  rather  than  the  Government. 
They  "  admire  the  bearing  of  the  German  episcopacy  "  for 
their  open  hostility  to  their  Government,  and  commend  to 
them  "  the  sublime  example  "  of  the  pope,  whom  they  are 
so  nobly  following.  They  declare  their  "  inexpressible  joy  " 
at  the  "  constancy  of  endurance  shown  by  the  whole  Ger- 
man clergy"  in  opposing  the  laws,  and  their  consequent 
''''beautiful  submission  to  the  Church.'^''  And  then  they  ex- 
press their  conviction  that  the  "  Catholics  of  Germany  will 
continue  to  value  their  faith  above  all  other  blessings" — 
that  is,  above  the  empire — and  that  they  will  be  always 
ready  "to  sacrifice  life  and  all  things  for  its  dear  sake."(') 
Whether  the  great  bulk  of  those  who  composed  this  large 
meeting  understood  the  import  of  all  this  is  somewhat  prob- 
lematical. But  of  one  thing  there  can  be  no  reasonable 
doubt :  that  the  three  bishops  and  the  "  reverend  clergy " 
understood  it  fully.  As  the  mere  means  of  preserving 
unity  among  their  follower  no  body  has  any  right,  and 
probably  very  few  have  any  inclination,  to  object  to  it.  It 
is  only  of  consequence  in  view  of  tlie  principles  enunciated, 
and  the  attitude  in  which  the  papal  training  places  those 
who  are  entirely  submissive  to  the  hierarchy,  and  who,  in 
other  respects,  are  good  and  peaceable  citizens.     These  lat- 

(0  Neiv  York  Tablet,  April  12th,  1873,  pp.  3-11. 


AMERICAN  DISLOYALTY  ENCOURAGED.  183 

ter  are  not  responsible,  for  their  Church  does  not  allow 
them  to  reason  about  her  affairs.  The  hierarchy  command 
— they  obey. 

What  did  the  hierarchical  manipulators  of  this  meeting 
mean?  This  only:  to  teach  their  followers  that  the  meas- 
ures of  the  German  empire,  which  they  called  persecution, 
belonged  to  the  Church — were  of  the  faith;  were  outside 
the  temporal  jurisdiction  of  human  governments ;  pertained 
only  to  the  spiritual  order;  and,  therefore,  could  only  be  de- 
cided upon  by  the  pope  !  Now,  with  the  single  exception  of 
the  expulsion  of  the  Jesuits,  all  the  enumerated  grievances 
of  which  they  complain  in  Germany  exist  in  the  United 
States.  Our  Government  gives  protection  to  every  Church 
and  every  religious  order.  It  confides  the  public  schools  to 
men  of  every  faith,  and  of  none.  It  maintains  "  unchris- 
tian," or,  as  they  choose  to  call  them,  "  godless  schools." 
And  all  these  things,  and  others  of  like  import,  it  considers 
as  belonging  to  temporal  affairs,  tlie  regulation  of  which  is 
under  the  exclusive  cognizance  of  laws  passed  by  the  state. 
Hence,  when  they  recognize  the  pope  as  having  authority 
over  these  temporal  matters  in  Germany  on  account  of  his 
spiritual  supremacy,  they  must  be  understood  as  meaning 
that  he  has  like  authority  in  the  United  States.  As  the  fun- 
damentals of  our  Government,  heretofore  indicated,  belong 
to  the  same  class  of  temporals,  so,  in  their  view,  the  pope 
has  the  same  power  to  release  them  from  the  obligation  of 
obedience  to  them,  as  he  has  to  release  their  "  fellow-Catho- 
lics "  in  Germany  from  their  obligation  of  obedience  to  the 
laws  of  their  own  country  !  This  logical  conclusion  can 
not  be  escaped,  in  reference  to  all  these  fundamentals  con- 
demned by  the  pope.  But  there  is  even  more  than  this  to 
show  that  he  would  have  them  go  one  step  farther,  and 
substitute  the  "  dwhie  right "  of  kings  to  govern  for  that 
now  possessed  by  the  people. 

If  he  considers  that  God  has  established  this  right,  then 
it  must  be  a  necessary  part  of  the  faith,  for  whatever  he  de- 
clares to  be  the  law  of  God  must  be  so,  if  he  is  infallible. 
And  if  it  is  of  the  faith  that  kings  govern  by  "divine 
right,"  it  must  be  maintained  as  well  in  the  United  States 
as  at  Rome ;  for  otherwise  the  Church  does  not  possess  a 


184  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

uniform  faith,  and  forfeits  her  claim  to  universality.  One 
might  suppose  that  the  anxiety  exhibited  by  Roman  Cath- 
olics in  the  United  States  for  the  success  of  De  Chambord 
in  France  and  Don  Carlos  in  Spain  would  leave  but  little 
doubt  upon  this  subject.  But  this  is  not  sufficient  of  itself 
to  settle  the  question.  The  pope  interprets  the  law  of  God, 
and  establishes  the  faith.  "  When  Rome  has  spoken,  that 
is  the  end  of  the  matter." 

Some  time  ago,  Mgr.  Segur — from  whom  we  quoted  in  a 
former  chapter — prepared  a  pamphlet  with  the  title  "  Vive 
le  Roi,"  which  he  presented  to  the  Count  De  Chambord, 
who  claims  that  he  is  the  legitimate  heir,  by  divine  right, 
to  the  throne  of  France.  The  object  of  this  pamphlet  was 
to  demonstrate  the  nature  and  existence  of  this  riijht.  An 
American  review  of  it,  from  the  pen  of  a  Roman  Catholic 
— probably  a  Jesuit — thus  states  his  proposition  : 

"Henry  V.  presents  himself  to  France  in  the  name  of 
Him  from,  whom  emanates  all  right  and  all  legitimate  sov- 
ereignty. He  is  King  of  France,  not  in  virtue  of  the  capri- 
cious will  of  the  people,  but  in  virtue  of  the  order  established 
by  God ;  he  is  King  of  France  by  divine  rights 

The  nature  of  this  right  is  defined  to  be  "  the  right  of 
God,"  and  "  a  true  right  of  property,"  which  can  not  be 
taken  away  without  robbery.     And  it  is  said : 

" though  it  results  from  human  facts,  it  is  no  less  di- 
vine; and  hence  it  may  be  said  that  by  divine  right  he  pos- 
sesses the  crown.  On  these  matters  there  exists  a  great  con- 
fusion of  ideas,  owing  to  the  vulgar  notions  put  afloat  by 
revolutionists?"* 

But  for  fear  of  possible  collision  between  claimants,  and 
difierences  of  opinion  ii-  to  the  particular  individual  so  fa- 
vored by  Providence,  and  so  as  not  to  oust  the  pope  from 
his  lofty  position  of  supremacy  over  the  world,  he  makes 
him  the  infallible  arbiter.  His  final  decision,  rendered  from 
whatever  motive,  is  conclusive  as  to  who  shall  be  and  Avho 
shall  not  be  king !  He  alone  knows  what  the  will  of  God 
is!  And  when  he  has  decided,  the  nation  must  obey! 
There  is  no  appeal !  The  people  have  no  will  in  the  mat- 
ter! They  are  slaves  —  he  is  their  master!  This  writer, 
pointing  out  the  mode  of  knowing  "  with  certitude  upon 


THE  POPE'S  DIVINE  EIGHT.  185 

whom  rests  the  divine  right,"  and  insisting  that  when  this  is 
ascertained  "  he  is  the  depositary  of  the  rights  of  God  for  the 
good  of  his  country,"  says : 

"And  if,  moreover,  the  Church  [that  is,  the  pope]  should 
take  in  hands  his  rights,  protecting  him  with  her  sympa- 
thies and  with  her  divine  authority/,  the  certitude,  at  least  for 
Christians,  becomes  such  that  doubt  would  seem  no  longer 
permitted.^^ 

Now,  if  these  were  only  the  individual  opinions  of  Mgr. 
Segur,  he  should  be  left  undisturbed,  as  an  avowed  support- 
er of  monarchy,  to  enjoy  them  or  to  preach  them,  if  he 
deemed  it  his  duty,  to  the  French  people.  They  would,  un- 
doubtedly, be  most  acceptable  to  the  ears  of  many  hearers, 
and  especially  to  all  the  hierarghy  of  France,  who  are  at 
this  time  acting  upon  them  as  of  the  faith,  with  the  hope 
that  they  may  persuade  the  Roman  Catholic  people  of  that 
country  to  place  Count  De  Chambord  upon  the  throne,  and 
destroy  the  republic ;  because,  as  we  are  told  by  this  Ameri- 
can reviewer, "  he  has  given  the  solemn  promise  that,  once  on 
the  throne  of  France,  he  will  take  up  the  cause  of  the  pope^"* 
and  "  then  the  sword  of  Charlemagne  shall  spring  from  the 
scabbard,  and  convoke,  as  of  old,  the  Catholic  peoples  to  the 
rescue  of  Rome  from  the  miserable  and  despicable  Italian 
apostates."  But  high  as  the  author  of  these  sentiments  is 
in  the  estimation  of  the  hierarchy,  he  has  secured  to  them 
a  higher  indorsement  than  his  own,  so  that  all  who  shall 
unite  for  these  objects  may  be  assured  that  they  are  serving 
God  and  the  Church.  He  laid  his  pamphlet  before  Pope 
Pius  IX.,  who,  in  expressing  his  approval  of  it,  thus  address- 
ed him ; 

"  Pius  IX.,  Pope,  to  his  Beloved  Son,  Greeting  and  Apos- 
tolic Benediction:  We  have  received  your  new  pamphlet, 
and  we  wish,  from  the  bottom  of  our  hearts,  that  it  may  dis- 
pel from  others  the  errors  which  you,  enlightened  by  the  mis- 
fortunes of  your  country,  have  had  the  happiness  of  reject- 
ing.  In  fact,  it  is  not  the  impious  sects  alone  that  conspire 
against  the  Church  and  against  society ;  it  is  also  those  men 
who,  even  should  we  suppose  them  of  the  fnost  perfect  good 
faith^nd  the  most  straightforward  intentions,  caress  the  lib- 
eral doctri7ies  which  the  Holy  See  has  many  times  disap- 


186  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

proved  of;  doctrines  which  favor  principles  whence  all  rev- 
olutions take  their  birth,  and  more  pernicious,  perhaps,  as  at 
first  sight  they  have  a  show  of  generosity.  Principles  evi- 
dently impious  can  only  affect,  in  fact,  minds  already  cor- 
rupted ;  but  principles  that  veil  themselves  with  patriotism 
and  the  zeal  of  religion,  principles  that  put  forward  the  as- 
pirations of  honest  men,  easily  seduce  good  people,  and  turn 
them  away,  unconsciously,  from  true  doctrine  to  errors, 
which,  speedily  taking  larger  developments,  and  translating 
into  acts  their  ultimate  consequences,  shake  all  social  order 
a7id  ruin  peoples. 

"  Certainly,  beloved  son,  if  you  shall  have  by  this  pam- 
phlet the  happiness  of  bringing  round  many  up  to  this  time 
in  error,  it  will  be  a  great  i;eward." 

When  does  the  pope  speak  ex  cathedrdf  When  he  de- 
clares the  faith,  say  his  followers.  What  is  the  faith  ?  It 
is  the  law  of  God,  or  whatsoever  is  founded  upon  it,  or  is 
the  necessary  consequence  of  it.  Therefore,  when  the  pope 
thus  gives  his  approval  to  the  doctrine  that  it  is  a  part  of 
the  law  of  God  that  kings  govern  by  "  divine  right,"  it  is 
necessarily  a  part  of  the  faith,  and  must  be  believed  as  such 
by  all  the  faithful.  To  reject  it  would  be  heresy.  Evident- 
ly, it  is  regarded  in  this  light  by  some  of  the  papists  in  the 
United  States  ?  If  not,  wherefore  the  necessity  of  repub- 
lishing in  this  country,  and  giving  prominence,  in  a  leading 
journal,  to  these  anti- American  opinions  of  Mgr.  Segur, 
with  the  pope's  brief  of  approval  attached  ?(**)  And  why 
should  the  reviewer  of  his  pamphlet  venture  to  declare  "the 
identity  of  opinion  between  the  Catholics  of  France  and 
America  with  regard  to  the  forrti  of  government  to  be 
adopted  in  the  former  country,  and  the  good  wishes  of  the 
Americans  for  the  success  of  the  Count  De  Chambord,"  un- 
less this  unity  of  opinion  grows  out  of  the  teachings  of  the 
pope?  The  reviewer  substantially  admits  this  when,  imme- 
diately after  avowing  this  unity,  he  says  that  the  success  of 
De  Chambord  "  will  consolidate  the  union  of  Catholics,  and 
facilitate,  at  a  later  period,  a  more   thorough  co-operation, 

(®)  The  New  York  Freeman's  Journal  and  Catholic  Register,  March  9th, 
1872. 


THE  POPE  TO  BE  MADE  KING  AGAIN.  187 

not  only  for  the  restoration,  but  also  for  the  co7isoUdatio7i 
and  maintenance^  of  the  sovereignity  of  the  sovereign  pontiff^ 
How  "  consolidate  the  union  of  Catholics "  in  Europe  and 
America  ?  Manifestly  upon  the  principles  avowed  by  Mgr. 
Segur  and  sent  forth  with  the  sanction  of  the  pope.  And 
how  consolidate  and  maintain  "the  sovereignty  of  the  sov- 
ereign pontiff,"  if  not  by  means  of  this  "  union  of  Catho- 
lics," based  upon  these  expressed  principles  of  '''■divine 
right  f^"*  With  what  vivid  imagination  does  he  look  for- 
ward to  the  time  when  this  grand  consummation  shall  be 
achieved !  Then  the  pope  "  will  be  restored  to  the  pleni- 
tude of  his  power ;  and,"  says  he,  "  with  the  elder  son  of 
the  Church  as  our  leader,  ice  shall  all  hasten  to  expel  from 
the  Eternal  City  the  miscreants  that  are  now  despoiling 
it !" — which  means  this :  that  when  the  doctrine  of  "  divine 
right "  shall  become  established  as  a  part  of  the  faith,  and 
the  throne  of  France  shall  be  held  by  virtue  of  it,  then  the 
Roman  Catholics  of  the  United  States  will  unite  with  their 
brethren  in  France  under  the  royal  banner  of  Henry  Y.,  and 
make  war  upon  Italy  !  Trained  in  such  a  school,  and  imbib- 
ing such  principles  as  a  part  of  their  religion,  how  can  these 
men  help  hating,  with  an  intense  hatred,  all  republican  and 
popular  institutions?  And  how  hard  they  struggle  to  im- 
press the  laymen  of  their  Church  with  kindred  principles ! 
They  are  commanded  in  the  name  of  a  Church  which  as- 
serts that  its  unity  never  has  been  and  never  can  be  broken, 
and  which  tolerates  no  disagreement  among  its  members. 
Each  one  of  them  is  educated  to  believe,  under  the  penalty 
of  excommunication,  in  an  unchanging  and  unchangeable 
pope — the  same  yesterday,  to-day,  and  forever.  "All  that 
he  [the  pope]  knows  now  as  revealed,  and  all  that  he  shall 
knoio^  and  all  that  there  is  to  know,  he  embraces  all  in  his 
intention  by  one  act  of  faith  !"(^)  If  faithful,  he  believes  in 
whatsoever  all  the  popes  have  said  and  done  regarding  faith 
and  morals — whatsoever  Pope  Pius  IX.  is  now  saying  and 
doing,  and  whatsoever  he  and  all  his  successors  shall  do  and 
say  in  the  future  ! 

Q)  "Grammar  of  Faith,"  by  Rev.  John  Henry  Newman,  p.  146.  This 
author  was  a  distinguished  convert  from  the  Church  of  England  to  Roman 
Catholicism.     He  has  replied  to  Mr.  Gladstone's  pamphlet. 


188  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

We  are  not  without  advice  from  European  Roman  Cath- 
olics, who  have  repudiated  the  doctrine  of  infallibility  and 
the  opposition  to  liberalism  which  grows  out  of  it,  which  ad- 
monishes us  that  these  things  are  worthy  of  our  most  seri- 
ous deliberation.  After  the  decree  of  infallibility  was  an- 
nounced, over  twelve  thousand  of  the  citizens  of  Munich,  in 
Bavaria,  presented  to  the  Government,  through  the  minis- 
ter of  public  worship,  an  address,  wherein  they  protested 
against  it  on  the  ground  of  the  danger  it  threatened  to 
their  civil  and  social  institutions.  A  brief  extract  from  it 
will  show  how  Roman  Catholics  themselves  look  upon  the 
impious  pretense  that  the  pope  stands  in  the  place  of  God 
on  earth — a  doctrine  equally  inculcated  here  as  there;  how 
they  shrink,  with  honest  apprehensions,  from  the  usurpations 
which  must  follow  infallibility,  if  it  shall  become  the  uni- 
versally recognized  doctrine  of  their  Church,  and  to  what 
extent  it  has  already  given  insolence  and  impunity  to  an  am- 
bitious and  dangerous  priesthood.     It  concludes  thus : 

"  The  doctrine  which  the  Government  of  your  royal  maj- 
esty has  declared  dangerous  to  the  political  and  social  foun- 
dations of  the  state^  is  sought  to  be  inculcated,  with  more 
and  more  urgency,  publicly  from  the  pulpit,  and  in  pas- 
torals and  clerical  newspapers,  as  well  as  privately  through 
letters  and  the  abuse  of  the  confessional. 

^^In  criminal  defiaiice  of  the  Government.^  the  hearts  of 
women  are  poisoned  against  their  husbands,  the  father  is 
cursed  to  the  face  of  his  child.  And  it  is  not  only  in  the 
confessio7ial  that  the  weaker  minds  of  women  are  sought 
to  be  gained.  Importunate  epistles  and  importunate  visits 
are  brought  into  requisition.  We  see  especial  danger  in 
the  abuse  which  many  of  the  clergy  have  already  begun  to 
introduce  into  the  religious  instruction  of  the  schools.  The 
child  is  justly  accustomed  to  look  upon  its  religious  precep- 
tor as  an  authority ;  it  believes  him,  and  obeys  him  with- 
out suspicion  or  reflection.  And  these  artless  and  unsus- 
pecting minds  are  now  taught  this  dangerous  new  doctrine. 
The  child  is  told  at  school  that  his  father  who  does  not 
believe  is  damned  and  accursed.  The  priests  denounce  in- 
famy and  disgrace  against  those  who  refuse  to  submit — sol- 
emn anathematism,  and,  what  is  most  hurtful,  ignominious 


SECRET  AURICULAR  CONFESSION.  189 

interment.  The  refractoriness  of  the  clergy  has  gone  so  far 
— on  the  Rhine,  for  instance — that  a  soldier  returned  from 
the  war,  who  was  about  to  lead  his  affianced  bride  to  the  al- 
tar, was  not  allowed  to  marry  her  because  his  name  had  ap- 
peared on  the  protest  against  this  dangerous  innovation." 

Here  are  distinctly  shown,  not  only  the  apprehensions  ex- 
isting in  the  minds  of  Roman  Catholics  in  reference  to  the 
effect  of  this  "  dangerous  new  doctrine  "  upon  the  faith  as 
they  have  been  taught  it,  and  its  threatening  aspects  toward 
the  political  and  social  foundations  of  the  state;  but  how 
that  extraordinary  instrument  of  ecclesiastical  despotism, 
the  confessional^  is  employed  in  fixing  this  doctrine  of  the 
pope's  infallibility  in  the  minds  of  the  young  and  unsuspect- 
ing, in  the  very  faces  of  all  the  governments,  and  in  defi- 
ance of  parental  authority.  This  same  marvelous  power  is 
at  work  in  this  country,  to  enforce,  at  the  sacred  altar,  the 
politico-religious  opinions  already  pointed  out  as  so  dan- 
gerous to  the  state,  so  at  war  with  the  whole  genius  and 
spirit  of  our  institutions.  Protestants  have  not  duly  con- 
sidered what  a  tremendous  engine  of  power  this  is — how 
far,  as  an  element  of  absolutism,  it  transcends  any  other 
ever  invented  by  human  ingenuity.  They  should  under- 
stand it  better. 

The  ecclesiastical  historians,  Sozomen  and  Socrates,  both 
inform  us  that,  in  the  fourth  century,  when  they  wrote,  con- 
fessions were  made  in  public;  thus  showing  in  what  light 
they  were  regarded  by  the  primitive  Christians  who  lived 
near  the  apostolic  age.  Sozomen  says  this  was  the  custom 
of  "the  Western  c\\\\yc\\qs,  particularly  at  Rome^  where  there 
is  a  place  appropriated  to  the  reception  of  penitents,  where 
they  stand  and  mourn  until  the  completion  of  the  solemn 
services  from  which  they  are  excluded;  then  they  cast 
themselves,  with  groans  and  lamentations,  prostrate  on  the 
ground.  The  bishop  conducts  the  ceremony,  sheds  tears, 
and  prostrates  himself  in  like  manner,  and  all  the  people 
burst  into  tears,  and  groan  aloud."  Penance  was  then  im- 
posed, and  after  the  performance  of  it,  the  penitent  was 
"  permitted  to  resume  his  place  in  the  assemblies  of  the 
Church."  He  continues:  "The  Roman  priests  have  care- 
fully  observed   this   custom  from    the   beginning    to    this 


1 90  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

time  f"*  while  at  Constantinople  it  had  been  the  custom  to 
appoint  a  presbyter  "to  preside  over  the  penitents."(^'') 
This  early  custom,  simple  and  impressive  in  its  form  of  pro- 
cedure, recognized  the  priest  only  as  an  intercessor  for  the 
penitent,  by  his  prayers ;  but  gave  him  no  power  to  impose 
"alms- giving,"  at  his  discretion,  as  a  satisfaction  for  sin. 
He  had  no  right  to  excommunicate  and  cut  off  any  Chris- 
tian from  fellowship  with  the  Church  without  trial  by  the 
Church,  and  conviction  upon  competent  evidence ;  and  this 
practice,  in  so  far  as  it  involved  the  power  of  the  priesthood, 
prevailed  universally  in  the  Western,  or  Roman,  Church 
for  many  centuries  after  Christ.  Within  that  period,  how- 
ever, the  practice  of  giving  publicity  to  confessions  was 
changed.  The  ambitious  Leo  I.,  who  became  pope  in  440, 
inaugurated  a  new  system,  in  order  to  increase  the  author- 
ity of  the  clergy,  and,  consequently,  of  the  pope.  He  di- 
rected that  "  secret  confession "  should  be  substituted  for 
that  which  before  had  been  public,  and  should  be  made  "  to 
the  priest  only^''  and  not  to  the  church.  (")  But  the  power 
of  absolution  was  not  extended,  even  by  him,  beyond  the 
petition  and  prayer  of  the  priest^  that  God  would  extend 
his  mercy  to  the  penitent,  and  pardon  and  absolve  him 
from  his  sins.  Thus  Gregory  I.,  who  did  not  become  pope 
till  590,  w^rote  as  follows  to  the  proconsul,  Marcellus : 

"And  since  you  have  asked  that  our  absolution  may  be 
given  you,  it  is  fitting  that  you  should  satisfy  our  Redeemer 
with  tears  and  the  whole  intention  of  your  mind  for  these 
things,  as  duty  requires ;  because,  if  he  be  not  satisfied,  what 
can  our  indulgence  or  pardon  conferf''''{^^) 

Q^)  "Sozomen's  Ecclesiastical  History,"  bookvii.,  chap.  16  (Bohn's  ed.), 
pp.  334-336  ;  "  Socrates'  Ecclesiastical  History,"  book  v.,  chap.  19  (Bohn's 
ed.),  pp.  281,  282.  See  the  question  discussed  in  Bingham's  "Antiquities  of 
the  Christian  Church,"  book  xviii.,  chap.  3,  vol.  ii.,  p.  1064;  also  "The 
History  of  the  Confessional,"  by  Bishop  Hopkins,  published  in  1850  by 
Harper  &  Brothers. 

(")  "The  History  of  the  Confessional,"  by  Bishop  Hopkins,  pp.  142,  143. 

('^)  "  The  History  of  the  Confessional,"  by  Bishop  Hopkins,  p.  147.  Bish- 
op Hopkins  says  that  the  third  Council  of  Carthage  prohibited  secret  con- 
fession by  "widows  and  virgins,"  even  to  "bishops  or  presbyters,"  unless 
"the  clergy"  or  "some  serious  Christians"  were  present  (p.  166).  I  do 
not  think  he  is  sustained  in  this,  or,  if  he  is,  that  it  established  the  dissolute- 


PRIESTLY  ABSOLUTION.  191 

As  the  clergy  had  not,  by  this  early  practice,  the  power 
to  pardon  penitents,  and  thus  to  acquire  the  desired  domin- 
ion over  them,  so  as  to  regulate  their  thoughts  and  actions, 
the  system  of  compounding  sins  was  gradually  introduced. 
It  at  first,  however,  made  slow  progress,  even  in  the  Mid- 
dle Ages.  In  the  ecclesiastical  laws  drawn  up  in  England 
by  Dunstan,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  in  967 — when  that 
kingdom  was  under  papal  rule  —  ^''alms-giving'''^  was  substi- 
tuted for  the  ancient  custom  of  performing  penance.  The 
rich  were  to  "  build  churches,"  and,  if  able,  to  "  add  man- 
ors," build  "roads  and  bridges,"  distribute  their  property, 
abandon  their  lands,  their  country,  and  "all  the  desirable 
things  of  this  world."  A  fast  of  a  day  could  be  redeemed 
"  by  one  penny,"  and  of  a  year  by  "  thirty  shillings,"  and  so 
on.('^)  From  this  principle  of  making  atonement  for  sin  by 
the  payment  of  money  as  "  alms,"  it  was  easy  to  advance 
another  step,  and  give  to  the  priests  the  same  power  over 
sins  that  God  possesses — that  is,  to  absolve  the  penitent. 
This  step,  however,  was  not  finally  taken  until  the  thir- 
teenth century,  when  the  doctrines  of  Thomas  Aquinas  ob- 
tained ascendency.  He  insisted  that  penitence  is  a  sacra- 
ment, like  baptism,  and  that,  as  the  priest  in  the  latter  says, 
"  I  baptize  thee,"  therefore,  in  the  former,  he  should  say,  "J 

ness  of  the  clergy  at  Rome.  The  third  Council  of  Carthage  was  a  provincial 
council  only.  It  was  called  by  the  Bishop  of  Carthage,  and  was  attended 
only  by  the  African  prelates.  And,  besides,  it  was  held  in  the  year  397, 
when  confession,  in  all  the  Western  Church,  was  made  in  public.  It  was 
about  half  a  century  before  the  practice  of  secret  confession  was  introduced 
by  Pope  Leo  I.  Nor  do  I  think  that  the  canons  of  this  council  make  any 
reference  to  confession.  They  rather,  it  seems  to  me,  refer  to  the  dissolute 
habits  of  some  of  the  African  clergy.  The  seventeenth  "forbids  them  to 
cohabit  with  strange  women,  and  permits  them  only  to  live  with  their  moth- 
ers, their  grandmothers,  their  aunts,  their  sisters,  their  nieces,  and  those  of 
their  domestics  who  dwelt  in  the  house  with  them  before  their  ordination." 
And  the  twenty-fifth  provides  that  "  clergymen,  and  those  who  make  profes- 
sion of  chastity,  shall  not  go  to  see  widows  or  virgins  without  the  permission 
of  the  bishop  or  some  priests;  that  they  shall  not  be  with  them  alone,  but. 
with  other  ecclesiastics,  or  such  persons  as  the  bishops  or  the  priests  shall 
appoint  them ;  that  bishops  and  priests  also  shall  not  visit  them  alone,  but  in 
company  with  other  ecclesiastics  or  Christians  of  known  probity." — Du  Pin's 
Ecclesiastical  History,  vol.  li.,  p.  278. 

('^)  "The  History  of  the  Confessional,"  by  Bishop  Hopkins,  p.  171. 


192  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

absolve  theef\^*)  thus  conferring  upon  the  priest  the  pow- 
er of  absolution.  The  argument  was  convincing  to  those 
who  desired  to  possess  the  power,  and  they  soon  began  the 
construction  of  that  system  of  rules  for  the  government  of 
the  confessional  which  can  not  be  read  without  bringing  a 
blush  to  the  hardest  cheek,  and  which  are  too  immodest  for 
review  or  repetition.  (^^)  The  reader  must  examine  for  him- 
self to  see  how  completely  every  thought,  sentiment,  intent, 

(1*)  "The  History  of  the  Confessional,"  by  Bishop  Hopkins,  p.  187. 

C^)  Upon  this  subject  Bishop  Hopkins  says :  "It  is,  indeed,  a  point  of  no 
small  difficulty  to  ascertain  how  far  it  is  consistent  with  propriety  to  proceed 
with  such  documents ;  for  it  is  certain  that  they  are  an  inseparable  part  of 
the  subject ;  that  they  form  the  staple  of  the  Roman  confessional  at  the 
present  day,  and  are  a  true  but  very  brief  index  to  the  sort  of  questions  which 
more  than  a  hundred  millions  of  our  fellow-creatures,  male  and  female,  are 
obliged  to  answer  whenever  it  pleases  the  priests  to  interrogate  them ;  while 
over  the  whole  of  what  takes  place  in  the  confessional  an  impenetrable  veil 
of  mystery  is  thrown.  Moreover,  these  things  are  not  only  to  be  found  in 
the  authentic  and  public  councils  of  the  Church  of  Rome  herself— being,  in 
fact,  the  official  acts  of  her  highest  dignataries — but  the  same,  in  substance, 
are  now  published  in  our  own  language  and  country,  for  the  use  of  the  laity, 
as  an  essential  guide  to  those  who  come  to  the  confessional.  And  yet,  so 
abhorrent  are  the  feelings  of  our  age  toward  the  open  discussion  of  such 
topics,  that  no  writer  can  transfer  the  mere  records  of  Romanism  to  his 
pages  without  incurring  the  reproach  of  indecency." — Hopkins,  pp.  193, 
194. 

"  The  Garden  of  the  Soul :  a  Manual  of  Spiritual  Exercises  and  Instruc- 
tions for  Christians,  who,  living  in  the  World,  aspire  to  Devotion,"  is  the 
title  of  a  work  published  under  the  auspices  of  the  Roman  Catholic  hie- 
rarchy in  the  United  States.  It  has  the  special  approbation  of  the  Arch- 
bishop of  New  York,  and  may  be  readily  procured.  It  is  extensively  circu- 
lated among  the  laity,  with  the  object,  as  declared  in  the  preface,  "to  in- 
struct the  members  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  on  the  nature  of  the 
most  solemn  act  of  their  religion."  And  yet,  in  the  "instructions  and  de- 
votions for  confession,"  in  order  that  "a  good  confession"  maybe  made, 
there  is  language  employed  which,  if  it  were  found  in  any  public  newspaper 
in  the  United  States,  would  cause  the  filthy  sheet  to  be  cast  out  from  every 
fireside.     See  p.  213. 

The  celebrated  work  of  Peter  Dens,  "Theologia  Moralis  et  Dogmatica," 
contains  several  numbers,  in  vol.  iv.,  upon  this  subject,  with  which  I  am  un- 
willing to  soil  these  pages,  even  by  the  insertion  of  the  Latin.  Several  years 
ago,  in  the  city  where  I  reside,  a  gentleman  read  and  translated  these  before 
an  audience  where  there  were  no  ladies,  and  an  honest  young  Roman  Catho- 
lic layman  present  was  so  shocked  that  he  caused  him  to  be  arrested  and 
carried  before  the  mayor  upon  a  charge  of  public  indecency  ! 


PRIESTS  FORGIVE  SINS.  193 

and  faculty  of  the  mind  is  confided  to  the  priest  by  the  prac- 
tice of  auricular  confession ;  and  how  every  action  of  life, 
even  to  the  invasion  of  the  domestic  sanctuary,  is  mapped 
out  before  him,  in  order  that  he  may  possess  entire  control 
over  the  penitent.  In  this  connection  it  is  only  necessary  to 
say  further,  that  the  Council  of  Trent,  in  1551,  established 
the  doctrine  of  Thomas  Aquinas  as  a  part  of  the  faith,  by 
giving  the  power  of  absolution  to  the  priests,  and  continu- 
ing the  system  of  allowing  them,  at  their  discretion,  to  com- 
pound for  sin  by  imposing  pecuniary  penalties.  The  doc- 
trine declared  by  this  celebrated  Ecumenical  Council  is,  that 
God  never  gave  "to  creatures'''*  the  power  to  grant  remission 
of  sin  until  the  coming  of  Christ,  when  "  he  became  man^  in 
order  to  bestow  on  mmi  this  forgiveness  of  sins,"  when  "  he 
communicated  this  power  to  bishops  and  priests  in  the 
Church,"  having  delegated  to  them  his  authority  for  that 
purpose ;('")  thus  showing  that,  by  the  act  of  the  priest  in 
prescribing  penance  or  receiving  "alms"  in  satisfaction  for 
sin,  the  sinner  is  forgiven  !  And  this,  although  the  priest 
himself  may  be  covered  all  over  with  the  filth  of  his  own 
personal  corruption  !('') 

When  we  consider  what  enormous  power  is  thus  acquired 
by  the  Roman  Catholic  priesthood,  and  the  requirements  of 
them  by  the  doctrine  of  papal  infallibility,  it  is  not  surpris- 
ing that  they  should  have  employed  it  in  resistance  to  the 
law  in  Germany,  Italy,  Spain,  and  Switzerland,  or  that  the 
Bavarian  Roman  Catholics  should  have  protested  against  it. 
And  when  it  is  considered  that  this  same  power  is  now  em- 
ployed in  this  country,  everj'  day  and  almost  every  hour,  by 
the  same  class  of  priests  and  for  the  same  object,  it  is  suffi- 
cient to  excite  both  inquiry  and  reflection.  The  influence 
of  the  confessional  does  not  vary  with  degrees  of  latitude 
and  longitude.  It  is  the  same  everywhere  —  putting  the 
penitent  completely  in  the   hands  of  his   confessor,  to   be 

Q^)  "Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent,"  p.  83.  This  is  a  work  of  stand- 
ard authority  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  in  the  United  States. 

(")  Ibid.,  pp.  73,  74.  Referring  to  such  as  are  excluded  from  the  pale  of 
the  Church,  it  is  here  said,  "Were  even  the  lives  of  her  ministers  debased 
by  crime,  they  are  still  within  her  pale,  and,  therefore,  lose  none  of  the  power 
with  which  her  ministry  invests  them." 

13 


194  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

molded,  in  his  character  and  in  all  his  thoughts  and  senti- 
ments, by  him.  While  the  bulk  of  the  people  of  the  United 
States  are  actively  engaged  in  their  daily  occupations,  un- 
suspecting and  tolerant,  the  whole  papal  priesthood  are  de- 
voting themselves,  morning,  noon,  and  night,  to  the  employ- 
ment of  this  enormous  engine  of  power,  in  order  to  bring 
our  Roman  Catholic  citizens — themselves  unsuspecting,  also 
—  by  persuasion,  if  possible,  but  by  threats  of  excommuni- 
cation, if  necessary — to  the  point  of  recognizing  the  infalli- 
bility of  the  pope,  and  the  universal  sovereignty  which  it 
establishes,  knowing,  as  they  do,  the  conflict  they  are  inau- 
gurating with  some  of  the  most  cherished  principles  of  our 
civil  institutions.  Is  there  no  danger  from  all  this?  There 
may  not  be,  and  will  not,  if  we  heed  the  admonitions  com- 
ing to  us  from  other  nations  with  every  flash  of  lightning 
through  the  sea.  Let  us  begin  in  time  to  guard  our  na- 
tional heritage,  and,  while  we  are  not  required  to  do  any 
thing  in  violation  of  the  tolerant  principles  of  our  Govern- 
ment, we  can  so  shield  them  from  the  assaults  of  foreign 
imperialism,  that  the  blows  aimed  at  them  by  their  assail- 
ants will  rebound  upon  their  own  heads. 


PIUS  IX.  WARS  UPON  LIBERALISM.  195 


CHAPTER  VII. 

The  Encyclical  and  Syllabus  of  Pius  IX. — The  Doctrines  of  the  Encyclical. 
— It  includes  Bulls  of  other  Popes. — The  Doctrines  of  the  Syllabus. — Op- 
posed to  Modern  Progress. — Doctrines  of  Boniface  VIII. — Council  of 
Trent  on  Crimes  of  Clergy. — The  Bull  "  Unam  Sanctam"  uniting  the 
Spiritual  and  Temporal  Swords. 

The  present  pope  has  practiced  no  disguise  in  exhibiting 
his  opposition  to  the  liberal  and  progressive  spirit  of  these 
times.  Disavowing  all  purpose  of  compromise,  he  coura- 
geously confronts  its  advocates,  and  grapples  with  them. 
He  presses  his  followers  forward  into  the  battle,  which  he 
and  they  carry  on  with  exceeding  fierceness — showing  no 
quarter  and  asking  none.  No  victory  has  been  won  by 
them  thus  far,  but  only  discomfiture  and  defeat.  Yet  all 
this — even  the  terrible  blow  that  has  been  struck  at  the 
papacy  by  the  Roman  Catholic  people  of  Italy — has  only 
converted  their  ardor  into  passion,  and  their  courage  into 
desperation.  Every  step  they  take  makes  it  more  and 
more  a  death-struggle.  If  liberalism  and  progress  shall 
be  overthrown,  the  papacy  may  rise  up  again  out  of  the 
wreck;  if  they  survive  the  contest,  no  human  power  will 
be  able  to  breathe  new  life  into  it.  Left  to  mingle  with 
the  debris  of  fallen  nationalities,  it  will  be  known  only  by 
the  history  w^hich  shall  record  its  wonderful  triumphs  in 
the  past,  and  point  out  the  cruel  bondage  in  which  it  held 
mankind  for  centuries.  The  pope  understands  all  this,  and, 
with  all  his  pontifical  energies  aroused  to  the  utmost,  is 
preparing  for  the  grand  and  final  contest.  He  throws  into 
it  all  the  weight  of  his  private  virtues — which  no  adver- 
sary has  assailed  —  and  the  pledge  of  his  personal  honor — 
which  none  have  impeached.  As  the  space  between  the 
combatants  is  narrowing,  he  claims  the  power  of  omnipo- 
tence, that  he  may  mold  all  his  followers  into  compact 
and  unbroken  columns,  with  but  a  single  impulse  in  every 


196  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

heart,  and  but  a  single  thought  in  every  mind.  He  invokes 
the  aid  of  the  Almighty  arm,  but  the  voice  of  his  invoca- 
tion dies  away  amidst  the  desolation  of  imperial  Rome.  He 
tries  to  shake  the  earth  with  the  thunder  of  excommunica- 
tion, but  its  terrors  have  departed  among  thousands  who 
once  shrunk  from  it  as  from  the  wrath  of  God.  As  a  last 
resort,  he  is  endeavoring  to  break  down  the  lines  of  separa- 
tion between  all  the  nations,  and  to  resolve  the  world  into 
one  great  "Christian  commonwealth" — a  grand  "holy  em- 
pire " — subject  to  his  single  will,  and  bowing  before  his  sin- 
gle sceptre  !  He  claims  authority,  by  virtue  of  the  divine 
appointment,  to  enter  every  nation,  to  defy  every  govern- 
ment, to  break  the  allegiance  of  every  people,  and  to  pluck 
up  by  the  roots  whatsoever  he  shall  find  that  bars  his  prog- 
ress to  universal  dominion.  He  sends  forth  his  summons 
to  all  the  faithful  throughout  the  world,  and  commands 
them  to  rally  under  the  papal  flag,  to  turn  their  backs 
upon  all  other  banners,  and  to  prepare  for  a  grand  crusade 
that  shall  rescue  Rome  from  the  apostate  spoiler.  And  if 
the  honor,  the  glory,  or  even  the  lives  of  their  own  nations 
shall  stand  in  the  way,  all  these  must  not  be  of  a  feather's 
weight  compared  with  the  mighty  triumph  which  is  to  be 
won  in  God's  name,  when  the  imperial  crown  shall  once 
more  sit  upon  the  papal  brow. 

We  have  seen  enough  already  to  satisfy  observing  minds 
in  reference  to  all  these  things,  but  they  have  too  intimate 
relation  with  the  present  condition  of  the  world  to  be  pass- 
ed by  without  more  detail.  Pope  Pius  IX.,  however  much 
we  may  resist  his  efforts  to  restore  the  papacy,  is,  on  ac- 
count both  of  his  official  and  private  character,  entitled  to 
our  respect  in  such  a  degree  that,  if  we  have  misjudged  his 
purposes  and  designs,  a  full  and  frank  statement  of  them 
should  be  made,  so  that  whatever  error  shall  exist  may  be 
corrected.  To  this  end,  therefore,  it  is  necessary  that  an 
analysis  of  the  Encyclical  and  Syllabus  of  1864  should  be 
made,  as  these  celebrated  official  documents  were  issued  ex 
cathedrdy  and  undoubtedly  contain  the  most  authoritative 
exposition  of  the  papal  policy.  (*) 

/    (')  The  Encyclical  and  Syllabus  of  1864  are  both  now  accepted,  without 


PIUS  IX.  YIELDS  TO  THE  JESUITS.  197 

This  examination  may  be  premised,  however,  by  the  re- 
mark, that  there  is  a  wonderful  discrepancy  between  the 
doctrines  set  forth  in  these  papers  and  those  which  the 
pope  was  generally  supposed  to  entertain  at  the  beginning 
of  his  pontificate.  He  did  then,  undoubtedly,  express  some 
liberal  sentiments,  and  indicate  a  purpose  to  make  some  im- 
portant concessions  to  the  people  of  the  papal  states.  But 
then  it  was  understood  that  he  was  not  under  the  control 
of  the  Jesuit  or  ultramontane  clergy,  and  was  disposed  to 
deal  kindly,  or,  at  least,  in  moderation,  with  the  liberal  sen- 
timents then  prevailing  among  the  Roman  Catholics  of  Eu- 
rope, especially  in  Italy,  and  under  the  influence  of  which 
they  were  gradually  moving  toward  the  establishment  of 
republican  governments.  Some  of  his  enemies  accused 
him  of  insincerity  in  making  these  concessions,  and  insisted 
that  they  were  the  result  of  his  fears  of  personal  violence. 
However  this  may  have  been,  he  was  soon  turned  from  his 
liberal  course  by  events  which  seem  to  have  thrown  him 
into  the  arms  of  the  Jesuits,  and  to  have  placed  him  in 
direct  antagonism  to  the  European  liberals  of  his  own 
Church.  This  cunning  and  compact  order  has  succeeded 
in  indoctrinating  his  mind  so  thoroughly  with  their  ideas 
of  ecclesiastical  and  civil  policy,  that  the  remembrance  of 
what  he  was  once  disposed  to  do  in  behalf  of  popular  rep- 
resentation seems,  under  their  teaching,  to  have  driven  him 
to  the  other  extreme.  His  assumed  infallibility,  brought 
about  by  them,  has  not  exempted  him  from  either  ambi- 
tion or  passion.  He  has  taken  especial  pains,  not  only  to 
condemn  and  anathematize  the  Italian  people,  because  they 
have  established  their  national  unity  and  fixed  their  capi- 


furthev  disguise  or  question,  as  ex  cathedra.  A  recent  work,  discussing  this 
subject,  enumerates  the  various  modes  in  which  the  pope  addresses  the  faith- 
ful in  such  a  way  as  to  command  their  assent  on  the  score  of  his  infalhbility. 
The  author  says,  "An  example  of  this  is  furnished  by  the  Syllabus  of  Er- 
rors put  forth  by  Pius  IX.  in  1864."  Then,  after  quoting  from  the  Encyc- 
lical, he  says:  "Now,  surely,  an  encyclical  containing  passages  like  these, 
which  are  even  stronger  in  their  context  than  as  extracts,  has  every  mark 
about  it  of  an  ex  cathedra  or  infallible  procurement." — When  Does  the 
Church  Speak  Infallibly  ?  by  Thomas  Francis  Knox,  of  the  London  Ora- 
tory.    London  ed.,  pp.  94-97. 


198  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

tal  at  Rome,  but,  attributing  these  political  changes  to  the 
motive,  on  their  part,  of  ultimately  creating  liberal  and 
popular  institutions,  he  has  so  frequently  and  strongly  ex- 
pressed himself  on  these  subjects,  that  it  is  not  at  all  diffi- 
cult to  demonstrate  his  hostility  to  such  a  government  as 
ours.  Nowhere,  however,  has  he  done  this  more  strongly 
than  in  the  Encyclical  and  Syllabus  of  1864,  which  renders 
it  necessary  for  us  to  examine  their  principles  minutely,  in 
order  to  see  what  he  requires  of  his  followers  in  this  coun- 
try, what  particular  principles  of  our  Government  have  ex- 
cited his  hatred,  and  what  other  principles  he  and  his  ad- 
herents propose  to  substitute  for  them.  The  reader  should 
keep  in  mind,  however,  that,  both  in  the  condemnation  of 
one  class  of  principles  and  in  the  avowal  of  the  other,  the 
pope  is  acting  within  what  he  considers  the  spiritual  or- 
der. Thereby  he  may  see  what  temporals  he  includes  in 
that  order,  and  over  what  and  how  many  principles  of  our 
Government  he  claims  jurisdiction  on  account  of  his  di- 
vine commission.  And  this  will  enable  him  to  understand 
what  the  papal  writers  mean  when  they  talk  about  the 
spiritual  and  the  temporal  orders;  that  is,  that  those  mat- 
ters only  which  do  not  concern  the  Church  are  temporals, 
that  all  matters  which  do  concern  it,  either  directly  or  in- 
directly, are  involved  in  spirituals,  and  that  the  pope  has 
sole  and  exclusive  jurisdiction  over  these. 

The  Encyclical  sets  out  by  denouncing  "  the  nefarious  at- 
tempts of  unjust  men,"  who  promise  "liberty  while  they 
are  the  slaves  of  corruption,"  and  who  are  endeavoring, 
"by  their  false  opinions  and  most  pernicious  writings,  to 
overthrow  the  foundations  of  the  Catholic  religion  and  of 
civil  society,"  assuming  that  the  superstructure  of  good 
government  can  rest  upon  no  other  foundation  than  the 
Church  of  which  he  is  the  head.  These  defenders  of  polit- 
ical liberty  have  stirred  up  a  "horrible  tempest"  by  their 
"erroneous  opinions,"  which  has  compelled  him  to  raise  his 
pontifical  voice  and  condemn  "^Ae  most  prominent,  most 
grievous  errors  of  the  age^"*  and  to  "  exhort  all  the  sons  of  the 
Catholic  Church^''  in  whatsoever  part  of  the  world  they  may 
reside,  that  "  they  should  abhor  and  shun  all  the  said  errors 
as  they  would  the  contagion  of  a  fatal  pestileiice^     Pro- 


AMERICAN  LIBERTY  CONDEMNED.  199 

ceeding  to  show  what  he  understands  to  be  the  object  of 
these  "  unjust  men,"  he  declares  that  their  chief  desire  is 
"  to  hinder  and  banish  that  salutary  influence  which  the 
Catholic  Church,  by  the  institution  and  command  of  her 
Divine  Author,  ought  freely  to  exercise^  even  to  the  con- 
summation of  the  world,  not  only  over  individuals^  but 
7iatioJis,  peoples,  and  sovereigns.''''  After  thus  generalizing, 
he  advances  to  specific  allegations.  He  considers  it  "iV??- 
pious  and  absurd''''  that  "society  should  be  constituted  and 
governed  irrespective  of  religion,^''  and  that  no  real  difference 
should  be  recognized  "between  true  and  false  religion;" 
that  is,  that  the  separation  of  Church  and  State,  and  the 
protection  of  all  forms  of  religion,  as  in  this  country,  are 
"  impious,"  because  they  violate  God's  law,  and  "  absurd," 
because  they  take  away  from  the  papacy  the  power  to  gov- 
ern the  country  and  control  the  consciences  of  all  the  people. 
He  denounces  those  who  insist  that  governments  should 
not  inflict  penalties  upon  those  who  violate  '■''the  Catholic 
religionf  thus  claiming  that  governments  should  be  con- 
structed so  as  to  inflict  these  penalties  when  the  laws  of 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church  are  violated.  The  withhold- 
ing this  power  of  punishment,  to  protect  "  the  Catholic  re- 
ligion," but  no  other,  he  calls  a  totally  false  notion  of  so- 
cial government,  "  because  it  leads  to  other  erroneous  opin- 
io7is  7nost  pernicious  to  the  Catholic  Church,  and  to  the  sal- 
vation of  souls."  These  he  calls  insanity  (deliramentum), 
following  the  example  of  his  immediate  predecessor,  Greg- 
ory XVI.,  who  issued  a  like  encyclical  letter  in  1832.  He 
then  enumerates  these  "erroneous  opinions"  which  are  so 
"pernicious  to  the  Catholic  Church,  and  to  the  salvation 
of  souls,"  and  which  indicate  insanity  on  the  part  of  those 
who  maintain  them — manifestly  meaning  that  it  is  the  duty 
of  the  papacy  to  exterminate  them  wherever  it  can  do  so. 
They  are  as  follows :  first,  the  assertion  of  the  principle 
"  that  liberty  of  co7iscience  and  of  icorship  is  the  7'ight  of 
every  mc/^i.'"  second,  that  this  liberty  of  conscience  and  of 
worship  should  be  '"'' proclaimed  aiid  asserted  by  the  lawV 
third,  that  the  citizens  shall  have  the  right  "^o  publish  and 
put  forward  ope7dy  all  their  ideas  whatsoever,  either  by  speak- 
i7ig,  in  print,  or  by  any  other  method!'''' 


200  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

All  these  principles  are  essentially  fundamentals  in  our 
form  of  government,  and  they  could  not  be  destroyed  with- 
out the  immediate  overthrow  of  all  our  civil  institutions. 
Yet  the  pope  declares  that  they  are  ^^ pernicious  to  the  Cath- 
olic Churchf  that  is,  in  conflict  with  its  principles  and  the 
plan  of  its  organization ;  that  we  are  insane^  because  we 
maintain  them;  and,  considering  them  worthy  of  special 
denunciation  and  anathema,  he  declares  that  those  who  do 
maintain  them,  as  all  do  who  are  worthy  of  American  citi- 
zenship, "  preach  the  liberty  of  perdition!''''  What  do  the 
followers  of  this  imperious  despot  mean  by  telling  us  that 
it  is  alone  by  a  religion  which  has  such  principles  and  doc- 
trines as  these  graffed  into  its  profession  of  faith  that  our 
Government  is  to  be  saved  from  destruction  ?  We  under- 
stand well  enough  what  the  pope  means ;  it  is  to  declare 
that  in  no  Roman  Catholic  government  could  such  "perni- 
cious" principles  exist;  that  the  anathemas  of  the  Church 
are  resting  heavily  upon  them;  that  they  are,  therefore, 
sinful  in  the  eye  of  God,  and  accursed  in  his  sight ;  and 
that  it  is  the  imperative  duty  of  all  Roman  Catholics  in 
the  United  States  and  elsewhere  to  make  immediate  w^ar 
upon  these  principles,  and  to  continue  it  until  all  of  them 
are  destroyed.  Will  the  priests  obey?  Undoubtedly  they 
will.  Will  the  laymen  also  ?  That  is  the  question.  Time 
alone  will  decide  it. 

But  Pius  IX.  shows  his  design  still  more  fully  by  going 
a  step  further,  and  striking  more  directly  at  the  question 
of  popular  sovereignty,  without  which  no  popular  form  of 
government  can  stand.  This  he  does  by  enumerating  two 
other  errors^  in  which  he  mingles  religion  and  politics  to- 
gether, showing  that  he  promulgates  a  politico-religious 
faith:  first,  he  denounces  the  idea  that  ^' the  will  of  the 
people^  manifested  by  public  opinion^''  can  ever  become  the 
law  of  a  country,  independent  of  the  "divine  and  human 
right " — that  is,  independent  of  the  divine  sanction  which 
God  has  conferred  upon  him  the  right  to  give  or  withhold 
as  he  pleases ! — second,  he  denounces  also  the  doctrine  that, 
in  political  affairs,  accomplished  or  consummated  facts  can 
have  the  force  of  right  by  the  fact  of  accomplishment; 
meaning  thereby  that  no  government  which  he,  as  God's 


THE  STATE  TO  OBEY  THE  CHURCH.  201 

vicegerent,  considers  unjust  can  become  legitimated,  by 
the  fact  of  its  existence,  for  any  length  of  time ;  and,  con- 
sequently, that  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  be- 
ing founded  upon  principles  "pernicious  to  the  Catholic 
Church  and  to  the  salvation  of  souls,"  has  not  yet  become 
legitimate,  and  would  not  become  so,  though  it  should  ex- 
ist a  thousand  years !  We  shall  hereafter  see  how  this 
same  doctrine  is  put  forth,  by  the  highest  authorities  of 
the  Church  in  this  country,  in  a  more  argumentative,  but 
not  less  dogmatical,  manner,  when  we  shall  come  to  con- 
sider the  modes  contrived  by  the  papacy  to  release  the  Ro- 
man Catholic  citizen  of  the  United  States  from  his  oath  of 
allegiance  to  our  National  Constitution. 

Considering  his  task  yet  unfinished,  the  pope  continues. 
Referring  to  the  religious  orders — to  the  right  of  the  Church 
to  acquire  and  hold  property  without  limitation — and  to  so- 
cialism and  communism — with  which  he  has  invariably  class- 
ed all  struggles  of  the  people  for  self-government — he  hurls 
his-  most  fearful  and  terrible  anathemas  at  the  heads  of  all 
who  require  the  Church  to  obey  the  laws  of  the  State !  and 
those  who  deny  the  authority  of  the  Church  and  his  own 
authority  over  secular  affairs !  These,  he  says — and  let  the 
reader,  keeping  in  mind  the  character  of  our  civil  institu- 
tions, mark  well  his  words — these  "  presume,  with  extraor- 
dinary impudence^  to  subordinate  the  authority  of  the  Church 
and  of  this  Apostolic  See,  conferred  upon  it  by  Christ  our 
Lord,  to  the  judgment  of  the  civil  authority,  and  to  deny  all 
the  rights  of  the  same  Church  and  this  see  with  regard  to 
those  things  ichich  appertain  to  the  secular  order ^ 

He  re-affirms  the  constitutions,  as  they  are  called  —  be- 
cause they  are  considered  as  having  all  the  solemnity  of 
law  —  of  his  predecessors,  Clement  XIL,  Benedict  XIV., 
Pius  VII.,  and  Leo  XIL,  which,  among  other  things,  con- 
demn all  secret  societies,  and  especially  freemasonry,  and 
brand,  with  their  heaviest  curses,  their  followers  and  parti- 
sans. He  denounces  those  who  deny  to  the  Church  the 
right  to  "  bind  the  consciences  of  the  faithful  in  the  tem- 
poral order  of  things ;"  and  also  those  who  say  "  that  the 
right  of  the  Church  is  not  competent  to  restrain,  with  tem- 
poral pe7ialties,  the  violators  of  her  laios^     He  declares  it 


202  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWEK. 

to  be  heresy  to  say  "  that  the  ecclesiastical  power  is  not,  by 
the  law  of  God,  made  distinct  from,  and  independent  of, 
civil  power,"  and  insists  that  it  is  not  usurpation,  but  con- 
sistent with  the  divine  plan,  to  maintain  that  it  is  both  dis- 
tinct and  independent.  He  characterizes  those  as  auda- 
cious who  assert  that  his  judgments  and  decrees,  concern- 
ing the  welfare  of  the  Church,  its  rights,  and  discipline,  "do 
not  claim  acquiescence  and  obedience  under  pain  of  sin  and 
loss  of  the  Catholic  profession  if  they  do  not  treat  of  the 
dogmas  of  faith  and  morals ;"  whereby  he  means  that  his 
judgments  and  decrees,  concerning  the  welfare,  rights,  and 
discipline  of  the  Church,  are  binding  upon  all  the  faithful, 
whether  confined  to  faith  and  morals  or  not;  in  other 
words,  that  his  infallibility  is  absolute  upon  all  subjects 
which  he  may  think  proper  to  embrace  within  it !  The 
Church,  says  Archbishop  Manning,  "zs  its  own  evidenced 
The  Catholic  World  immediately  repeats  the  idea  —  ''''the 
Church  accredits  herself  P''  The  pope,  therefore,  as  the  in- 
fallible head  of  the  Church,  is  alone  competent  to  declare 
the  limits  and  character  of  his  own  power !  This,  again, 
says  Manning,  "  is  2^  personal  privilege'''*  which  all  the  com- 
bined authority  of  the  Church  can  not  take  from  him  or 
diminish  !  There  is  not  a  Roman  Catholic  priest  in  the 
United  States  who  does  not  know  that,  if  he  dared  to  ut- 
ter publicly  a  sentiment  contrary  to  this,  his  clerical  robes 
would  be  stripped  off  instantaneously,  and  he  be  denounced 
as  lit  for  the  tortures  of  eternal  punishment. 

The  numerous  counts  in  this  indictment,  which  the  pope 
has  drawn  up  against  all  liberal  ideas,  all  liberal-minded 
people,  and  all  liberal  institutions,  display  no  less  the  ma- 
lignity of  the  prosecutor  than  the  skill  of  a  professional 
adept.  He  takes  care  that  there  shall  be  no  misconcep- 
tion of  either  the  principles  or  the  persons  arraigned  by 
it.  Therefore,  he  sweepingly  embraces  all  such  as  "f7«re" 
to  disagree  with  the  Roman  Catholic  faith,  by  proclaiming 
that  all  their  teachings  and  principles  are  "  contrary  to  the 
Catholic  dogma  of  the  plenary  power  divinely  conferred  on 
the  sovereign  pontiff  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  to  guide,  to 
supervise,  and  govern  the  universal  Church."  And  then, 
folded  in  his  pontifical  robes,  with  his  ecclesiastical  sword  in 


UNIVERSAL  DOMINION  OF  THE  POPE.  203 

one  hand  and  his  temporal  sword  in  the  other,  and  with  the 
crown  of  a  king  yet  resting  npon  his  royal  brow,  he  thus 
hurls  at  all  these  impudent  and  audacious  adversaries  his 
fearful  curses,  in  one  breath,  and  his  stern  command  to  the 
faithful,  in  the  next : 

"  Therefore  do  we,  by  our  apostolic  authority,  reprobate, 
denounce,  and  condemn,  generally  and  particularly,  all  the 
evil  opinions  and  doctrines  specially  mentioned  in  this  let- 
ter, and  we  wish  that  they  may  be  held  as  reprobated,  de- 
nounced, and  condemned  by  all  the  children  of  the  Catholic 
Church." 

But  the  pope  is  not  yet  content — his  work  is  not  yet  ac- 
complished. He  next  turns  his  attention  to  the  free  dis- 
cussion of  the  press,  to  the  ^^ pestilent  books,  pamphlets, 
and  joimials,  which,  distributed  over  the  earth,  deceive 
the  people,  and  wickedly  lie;"  and  directs  his  clergy  to 
instruct  "the  faithful  that  all  true  happiness  for  mankind 
proceeds  from  our  august  religion,  from  its  doctrines,  and 
practice."  He  commands  them  to  inculcate  the  doctrine 
''^that  kingdoms  rest  upon  the  foundation  of  the  Catholic 
faith ;"  and  "  not  to  omit  to  teach  *  that  the  royal  povjer 
has  been  established  not  only  to  exercise  the  government 
of  the  world,  but,  above  all,  for  the  protection  of  the 
Church,  and  that  there  is  nothing  more  profitable  and 
more  glorious,  for  the  sovereigns  of  states  and  kings,  than 
to  leave  the  Catholic  Church  to  exercise  its  laws,  and  not 
to  permit  any  to  curtail  its  liberty;'"  herein  adopting  the 
language  of  Pope  St.  Felix,  in  a  letter  written  to  the  Em- 
peror Zeno.  And  he  quotes  approvingly  from  an  encyclic- 
al letter  of  Pius  VH.,  in  1800,  this  sentence:  "It  is  certain 
that  it  is  advantageous  for  sovereigns  to  submit  their  royal 
will,  according  to  his  ordinance,  to  the  priests  of  Jesus  Christ, 
and  not  to  prefer  it  before  the^n^i^) 

And  here  our  analysis  of  this  extraordinary  encyclical 
letter  of  Pope  Pius  IX.  might  end,  if  it  did  not  possess 
additional  significance,  which  is  concealed  from  the  ordi- 
nary reader,  whether  Roman  Catholic  or,  Protestant.  The 
hierarchy  understand   it   perfectly  well:  if  they  were   ad- 

(')  See  Appendix 


204  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

dressed  by  the  pope  in  cabalistic  words,  they  would  be  fur- 
nished with  a  key  to  their  interpretation.  It  is  far  better 
that  an  unreasonable  space  should  be  devoted  to  it,  than 
that  what  is  hidden  within  should  remain  undisclosed,  and 
its  true  meaning  unknown. 

It  embodies,  but  without  quoting,  several  of  the  previous 
encyclical  letters  of  Pius  IX. — one  in  1846,  one  in  1854, 
and  another  in  1862.  In  that  of  1846  he  denounces  pri- 
vate judgment  in  the  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures,  and 
condemns  those  who  "  dare  rashly  to  interpret,  when  God 
himself  has  appointed  a  limng  authority  to  teach  the  true 
and  legitimate  sense  of  his  heavenly  revelation  "  infallibly. 
Besides  secret  societies,  he  especially  condemns  Bible  socie- 
ties, which  he  calls  "  these  insidious  Bible  societies,^''  because 
they  translate  the  Bible  "against  the  holiest  rules  of  the 
Church  into  various  vulgar  tongues,"  thereby  enabling  it 
to  be  read  in  all  the  spoken  languages,  and  giving  to  every 
man  the  opportunity  to  "  interpret  the  revelations  of  the 
Almighty  according  to  his  own  private  judgment,"  which 
God,  in  his  opinion,  never  designed.  He  re -affirms  the 
apostolic  letter  of  Pope  Gregory  XVI.,  condemning  these 
societies  also,  and  proceeds  to  lament  the  ^^  most  foul  plague 
of  books  and  pamphlets  "  with  which  the  world  is  cursed. 
From  "  the  unbridled  license  of  thinking,  speaking,  and  writ- 
ing^''  he  declares  many  bad  consequences  have  ensued ; 
among  others,  the  diminution  of  his  own  power,  opposition 
to  the  authority  of  the  Church,  and  the  melting-away  of 
the  influence  of  all  power;  that  is,  of  all  royal  power, 
which  is  alone  legitimate.  He  enjoins  due  obedience  to 
princes  and  powers,  except  in  cases  where  "  the  thing  com- 
manded be  opposed  to  the  laws  of  God  and  the  Church  y"  in 
which  event  this  obedience  is  not  due!  And  he  counsels 
the  Roman  Catholic  princes  to  remember  that  the  ''^  regal 
power  was  given  them,  not  only  for  the  government  of  the 
world,  but  especially  for  the  defense  of  the  Church  ;"  where- 
fore he  beseeches  them  to  "  defend  the  liberty  and  prosperi- 
ty of  the  Church,  in  order  that  the  right  hand  of  the  Church 
may  defend  their  empires ;"  that  is,  that  each  may  maintain 
the  power  and  authority  of  the  other,  and  thus  subject  the 
whole  world  to   their  united  government;  with  the  State, 


USE  OF  THE  BIBLE  FORBIDDEN.  205 

however,  obedient  to  the  Church,  and  the  Church  obedient 
to  the  pope ! 

Thus  we  have  one  key  to  the  Encyclical  of  December 
8th,  1864.  But  still  within  this  there  is  another;  that  is, 
the  apostolic  letter  of  Pope  Gregory  XVI.  He  issued  two 
pontifical  bulls  —  one  in  1832,  and  another  in  1844  —  re-af- 
iirming  what  had  been  said  of  Bible  societies  by  Pius  VII., 
in  1816;  by  Leo  XII.,  in  1824;  and  by  Pius  VIII.,  in  1829. 
This  is  what  Gregory  XVI.  says  in  his  bull  of  1844 : 

"  We  confirm  and  renew  the  decrees  recited  above,  deliv- 
ered in  former  times  by  apostolic  authority,  against  the  pub- 
lication^ distribution^  reading^  and  possessiori  of  books  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures^  translated  into  the  vulgar  tongue?'' i^) 

This,  it  will  be  noticed,  is  not  an  inhibition  against  ^  false 
translation  of  the  Bible,  but  against  any  translation  "  into 
the  vulgar  tongue" — that  is,  into  the  spoken  language  of 
any  people.  To  the  papist  his  were  the  utterances  of  infal- 
libility, as  binding  upon  him  as  if  God  himself  had  spoken 
them.  And,  therefore,  the  Church  itself,  in  attempting  to 
escape  the  censures  of  the  present  age,  by  translating  the 
Scriptures  "into  the  vulgar  tongue,"  has  disobeyed  this 
prohibitory  injunction  of  its  own  pope.  But  as  this  was 
only  to  answer  a  demand  made  necessary  by  the  increas- 
ing intelligence  of  the  world,  and  to  resist  the  encroach- 
ments made  upon  the  papacy  by  the  open  Bible  of  Protest- 
antism, obedience  is  so  far  paid  to  that  part  of  the  injunc- 
tion which  prohibits  "the  publication, distribution,  reading, 
and  possession  of  books  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,"  that  there 
are  millions  of  Roman  Catholics  in  Europe,  in  Mexico,  and 
in  the  South  American  states,  who  are  not  allowed  to  pos- 
sess a  Bible,  and  thousands  in  the  United  States  who  know 
of  its  contents  only  what  their  priests  choose  to  commu- 
nicate. 

But  the  bull  of  Gregory  XVL,  of  1832— referred  to  and 
indorsed  by  Pope  Pius  IX.,  and  now  to  be  enforced  by  the 
faithful  in  the  United  States  and  elsewhere,  so  soon  as  the 
power  to  enforce  it  shall  be  acquired — besides  its  special 
condemnation  of  Bible  societies,  denounces  and  anathema- 

(')  Dowling's  "  History  of  Ilomanism,"  p.  623. 


206  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

tizes  "  liberty  of  conscience  "  as  a  "  most  pestiferous  error," 
from  which  spring  revolutions,  corruption,  contempt  of  sa- 
cred things,  holy  institutions,  and  laws,  and,  "in  one  word, 
that  pest^  of  all  others  most  to  he  dreaded  in  a  state,  unbri- 
dled liberty  of  opinion  r  That  also,  of  1844,  is  most  ex- 
pressive and  suggestive,  especially  in  its  condemnation  of 
"religious  liberty,"  which  it  denounces,  because  it  makes 
"  the  people  disobedient  to  their  princes,"  and  because,  if  it 
should  be  conceded  to  the  Italians  of  the  papal  states,  they 
"  will  naturally  soon  acquire  political  liberty  !"(*)  like  the 
people  of  the  United  States  —  a  result  which  the  papacy 
will  never  tolerate,  and  to  prevent  which  Pius  IX.  was  al- 
ways ready  to  turn  the  bayonets  of  his  "papal  zouaves" 
against  his  subjects,  until  they  fled  before  the  artillery  of 
Victor  Emmanuel. 

But  this  is  not  all  that  is  secretly  embodied  in  this  En- 
cyclical. It  has  already  been  seen  that  it  refers  to,  and  ap- 
proves, the  bulls  of  Clement  XII.,  Benedict  XIV.,  Pius  VII., 
and  Leo  XII.  All  these  have  to  be  understood,  in  order  to 
learn  its  full  import. 

Clement  XII.  was  a  most  bitter  and  unrelenting  enemy 
of  all  republican  and  democratic  ideas.  Thus  speaks  a  Ro- 
man Catholic  historian  :  "  As  soon  as  he  was  seated  on  the 
throne  of  the  apostle,  like  his  predecessor  [Benedict  XIIL], 
he  declared  himself  to  be  an  enemy  of  the  democratic 
ideas  which  were  filtering  through  all  classes  of  society, 
announced  his  pretensions  to  omnipotence,  and  set  him- 
self up  as  a  pontiff  of  the  Middle  Ages."(*)  This  same  his- 
torian, alluding  to  the  bull  which  he  issued  against  the  free- 
masons, now  approved  by  Pope  Pius  IX.,  says: 

"  His  holiness  prohibited  his  subjects,  under  penalty  of 
DEATH,  from  becoming  affiliated  with,  or  from  assisting  at, 
an  assembly  of  freemasons,  or  even  from  inducing  any  one 
to  enter  the  proscribed  society,  or  only  from  rendering  aid, 
succor,  counsel,  or  a  retreat  to  one  of  its  members.  He  also 
enjoined  on  the  faithful,  under  penalty  of  the  most  severe  cor- 
poral punishment,  to  denounce  those  whom  they  suspected 


(*)  Bowling's  "History  of  Romanism,"  pp.  619,  620. 
(^)  "  History  of  the  Popes,"  by  Cormenin,  vol.  ii.,  p.  376. 


FREEMASONRY  PUNISHED  BY  DEATH.  207 

of  being  connected  with  them,  and  to  reveal  all  they  could 
learn  touching  this  heretical  and  seditious  association.''^) 

Benedict  XIV.  was  the  immediate  successor  of  Clement 
XII.  Although  he  professed  opposition  to  the  Jesuits,  who 
were,  at  that  time,  held  in  almost  universal  execration,  he, 
at  first  secretly,  and  afterward  openly,  aided  them  in  arrest- 
ing the  intellectual  progress  of  the  people,  and  in  their  op- 
position to  the  enlightenment  advocated  and  excited  by  the 
philosophers  and  encyclopedists  of  France,  under  the  lead 
of  Roussean,  Montesquieu,  d'Alembert,  and  others.  Among 
other  means  of  doing  this,  he  renewed  the  bull  of  Clement 
XII.  against  the  freemasons  and  other  secret  societies. 

Pius  VII.  was  pope  nearly  as  long  as  Pius  IX.  has  been — 
from  1800  to  1823.  His  pontificate  was  chiefly  distinguish- 
ed by  his  excommunication  of  Napoleon  Bonaparte,  and 
his  subsequent  recantation,  under  terror  of  threats,  when  he 
called  Napoleon  his  "  most  dear  son,"  and  by  his  restoration 
of  the  Jesuits  to  pontifical  favor — as  "vigorous  and  experi- 
enced rowers"  to  guide  the  papacy  and  save  it  from  "ship- 
wreck and  death. "(')  But  his  condemnation  of  Bible  soci- 
eties, which  Pius  IX.  has  specially  approved,  is  expressed 
in  his  encyclical  letter  of  1816,  addressed  to  the  primate 
of  Poland,  in  these  words: 

"  We  have  been  truly  shocked  at  this  most  crafty  device 
(Bible  societies),  by  which  the  very  foundations  of  religion 
are  undermined.  We  have  deliberated  upon  the  measures 
proper  to  be  adopted,  by  our  pontifical  authority,  in  order 
to  remedy  and  abolish  this  pestilence^  as  far  as  possible,  this 
defilement  of  the  faith  so  imminently  dangerous  to  souls.  It 
becomes  episcopal  duty  that  you  first  of  all  expose  the  wick- 
edness of  this  nefarious  scheme.  It  is  evident,  from  experi- 
ence, that  the  Holy  Scriptures^  when  circulated  i7i  the  vulgar 

(^)  "  History  of  the  Popes,"  by  Cormenin,  p,  379.  Pope  Clement  XII.  was 
so  avaricious,  and  had  so  few  scruples  of  conscience  to  restrain  him,  that  he 
did  not  hesitate  to  commit  sacrilege  to  obtain  money.  Cormenin  says  :  "At 
the  instigation  of  his  nephews,  he  sold,  to  Philip  V.  of  Spain,  for  his  son, 
Don  Luis,  who  was  scarcely  eight  years  old,  the  briefi  which  raised  a  child 
in  his  jacket  to  the  dignity  of  Archbishop  of  Toledo  and  Seville,,and  which 
conferred  on  him  the  title  of  cardinal." — Ibid.,  p,  380. 

C)  "  History  of  the  Popes,"  by  Cormenin,  vol,  ii.,  p.  423. 


208  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

tongue^  have,  through  the  temerity  of  men,  produced  more 
harm  than  benefit.  Warn  the  people  intrusted  to  your  care, 
that  they  fall  not  into  the  snares  prepared  for  their  everlast- 
ing  ruin^i^) 

Leo  XII.  succeeded  Pius  VII.,  and  Corinenin  says:  "He 
was  not  long  in  raising  himself  to  the  highest  dignity,  bj^ 
means  of  his  intrigues  with  the  Rom,an  courtesans,  and  his 
liaisons  with  the  basta7'ds  of  the  incestuous  Pius  F7]"(®)  He 
promulgated  the  bull  "  Quod  hoc  ineunte  smculo,^"*  which  fix- 
ed a  universal  jubilee  for  the  year  1825,  in  order  to  "revive 
the  trade  in  dispensations,  indulgences,  benefices,  and  abso- 
lutions."(^°)  That  which  meets  the  special  approbation  of 
Pius  IX.  in  his  Encyclical  is  the  attack  of  Leo  XII.  upon 
the  philosophical  and  liberal  schools,  his  charge  that  they 
"  rekindled  from  their  ashes  the  dispersed  phalanxes  of  er- 
rors," and  his  denunciation  of  them  and  their  teachings,  in 
the  following  words : 

"This  sect,  covered  externally  by  the  flattering  appear- 
ance of  piety  and  liberality,  professes  toleration,  or  rather 
indifference,  and  interferes  not  only  with  civil  affairs,  but 
even  with  those  of  religion ;  teaching  that  God  has  given 
entire  freedom  to  every  man,  so  that  each  one  can,  without 
endangering  his  safety,  embrace  and  adopt  the  sect  or  opin- 
ion which  suits  his  private  judgment This  doctrine, 

though  seducing  and  sensible  in  appearance,  is  profoundly 
absurd;  and  I  can  not  warn  you  too  much  against  the  im- 
piety of  these  maniacs?'' {^^) 

Passing  then  to  the  "deluge  of  pernicious  books"  which 
had  obtained  circulation.  Pope  Leo  XH.  exhibits  also  his  un- 
compromising animosity  to  Bible  societies,  which,  he  said, 
were  spreading  "  audaciously  over  the  whole  earth,"  and  to 
the  publication  of  translations  of  the  Bible  in  "  the  languages 
of  the  world,  which,  he  declared,  was  "  in  contempt  of  the 
traditions  of  the  holy  fathers,"  and  "  in  opposition  to  the 
celebrated  decree  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  which  prohibits 

C)  This  bull  will  be  found  at  length  in  Niles's  Weekly  Register,  vol.  xii., 
pp.  206,  207 — 1817.  The  translation  there  is  in  a  somewhat  different  ar- 
rangement of  language,  but  it  is  substantially  the  same  as  the  above. 

C)  Cormenin,  vol.  ii.,  p.  426.  (")  Ibid. 

0') //nU,  vol.  ii.,  p.  427. 


SCRIPTUKES  MUST  NOT  BECOME  COMMON.  209 

the  holy  Scriptures  from  being  made  commo7iy  Thus  ex- 
pressing the  fear,  almost  universal  among  the  popes,  that 
the  free  circulation  of  the  Bible  would  do  the  Church  more 
harm  than  all  other  causes  combined,  he  continues: 

"  Several  of  our  predecessors  have  made  laws  to  turn  aside 
this  scourge;  and  we  also,  in  order  to  acquit  ourselves  of  our 
pastoral  duty,  urge  the   shepherds  to  remove  their  flocks 

carefully  from  these  mortal  pasturages Let  God  arise: 

let  him  repress^  confound,  annihilate  this  unbridled  license  of 
speaking,  writing,  and  publishing.'^'' {^^) 

By  this  means  alone,  though  the  process  is  tedious  and 
circuitous,  do  we  reach  the  real  meaning  of  the  encyclical 
letter  of  Pius  IX.  The  initiated  see  it  at  once  ;  but  to  those 
who  have  neither  the  means  nor  time  for  investigation,  this 
explanation  is  necessary,  that  they  may  the  more  readily  re- 
alize wherein  the  papal  principles,  thus  enunciated,  are  in 
conflict  with  the  public  sentiment  of  this  country,  and  with 
our  social,  religious,  and  political  institutions.  Nothing  is 
plainer  than  that,  if  these  principles  should  prevail  here,  our 
institutions  would  necessarily  fall.  The  two  can  not  exist 
together.  They  are  in  open  and  direct  antagonism  with  the 
fundamental  tlieory  of  our  Government,  and  of  all  popular 
government  everywhere.  The  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  repudiates  the  idea  of  an  established  religion:  yet  the 
pope  tells  us  that  this  is  in  violation  of  God's  law,  and  that, 
by  that  law,  the  Roman  Catholic  religion  should  be  made 
exclusive,  and  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  acting  alone 
through  him,  should  have  sovereign  authority  "  not  only 
over  individuals,  but  nations,  peoples,  and  sovereigns,"  so 
that  the  whole  world  may  be  brought  under  its  dominion, 
and  be  made  to  obey  all  the  laws  that  he  and  his  hierarchy 
shall  choose  to  promulgate  !  and  that  this  same  Church  shall 
have  power  also  to  inflict  whatever  penalties  he  shall  pre- 

Q"^)  Cormenin.  Pope  Leo  XII.  distinguished  himself  also  by  proposing  to 
put  in  operation  the  system  of  "taxes  of  the  apostolic  chancery  for  the  re- 
demption of  crimes;''^  and  when  remonstrated  with  by  some  of  the  cardinals, 
on  the  ground  that  it  would  give  just  cause  of  complaint  to  the  enemies  of 
the  papacy,  he  replied,  "  Bah!  fear  nothing;  we  will  bring  all  the  writers  to 
reason,  I  act  to-day  with  money  for  religion,  in  order  to  act  to-morrow  for 
religion  with  money.'' — Ibid.,  vol.  ii..  \^.  427. 

14 


210  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

scribe  upon  all  those  who  dare  to  violate  any  of  these  laws ! 
The  Constitution  secures  the  right  to  every  man  of  worship- 
ing God  according  to  the  convictions  of  his  own  conscience : 
yet  the  pope  calls  this  insanity,  and  declares  it  to  be  "  most 
pernicious  to  the  Catholic  Church."  The  Constitution  guar- 
antees liberty  of  speech  and  of  the  press :  yet  the  pope  says 
that  this  is  "  the  liberty  of  perdition,"  and  should  not  be  tol- 
erated. The  Constitution  provides  for  its  own  perpetuity 
by  making  its  principles  "  the  supreme  law  of  the  land :"  yet 
the  pope  says  that  if  he  shall  find,  as  he  has  already  done, 
any  of  its  provisions  against  the  law  of  God,  as  he  interprets 
it,  they  do  not  acquire  the  "  force  of  right "  from  the  fact  of 
its  existence,  as  the  fundamental  law  of  the  nation.  The 
Constitution  requires  that  all  the  people,  and  all  the  church- 
es, shall  obey  the  laws  of  the  United  States :  yet  the  pope 
anathematizes  this  provision,  because  it  requires  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  to  pay  the  same  measure  of  obedience  to 
law  that  is  paid  by  the  Protestant  churches;  and  claims 
that  the  government  shall  obey  him  in  all  religious  affairs, 
and  in  all  '"''secular  affairs  "  which  pertain  to  religion  and  the 
Church,  so  that  his  will,  in  all  these  matters,  shall  become 
the  law  of  the  land.  The  Constitution  subordinates  all 
churches  to  the  civil  power,  except  in  matters  of  faith  and 
discipline :  yet  the  pope  declares  this  to  be  heresy,  because 
God  has  commanded  that  the  Government  of  the  United 
States,  and  all  other  governments,  shall  be  subordinate  to 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church !  The  Constitution  is  based 
upon  the  principle  that  the  people  of  the  United  States  are 
the  primary  source  of  all  civil  power :  yet  the  pope  insists 
that  this  is  heretical  and  unjust,  because  God  has  ordained 
that  all  governments  shall  "rest  upon  the  foundation  of  the 
Catholic  faith,"  with  himself  alone  as  the  source  and  inter- 
preter of  law.  The  Constitution  repudiates  all  "  royal  pow- 
er;" yet  the  pope  condemns  this,  and  proclaims  that  the 
world  must  be  governed  by  "  royal  power,"  in  order  that  it 
may  protect  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  to  the  exclusion  of 
all  other  churches !  The  Constitution  allows  the  free  circu- 
lation of  the  Bible,  and  the  right  of  private  judgment  in  in- 
terpreting it :  yet  the  pope  denounces  this,  and  says  that 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church  is  the  only  "  living  authority  " 


PIUS  IX.  CONDEMNS  AMERICAN  LIBERTY.  211 

which  has  the  right  to  interpret  it,  and  that  its  interpreta- 
tion should  be  the  only  one  allowed,  and  should  be  protect- 
ed by  law,  while  all  others  should  be  condemned  and  disal- 
lowed. In  all  these  respects,  and  upon  each  of  these  impor- 
tant and  fundamental  ideas  of  government,  there  is  an  irrec- 
oncilable difference  between  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  and  the  papal  principles  announced  hj  this  encyclical 
letter.  The  two  classes  of  principles  can  not  both  exist,  any- 
where, at  the  same  time.  Where  one  is,  there  it  is  impossi- 
ble for  the  other  to  be. 

By  this  analysis  of  the  Encyclical,  we  are  enabled  to  sum 
up,  in  a  few  words,  the  meaning  and  purposes  of  the  pope. 
He  would  not  only  suppress  all  "  liberty  of  conscience,"  but 
would  muzzle  the  press,  suppress  all  Bible  societies,  prohibit 
the  ^^  publication^  distribution^  reading^  and  possession  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures  translated  into  the  vulgar  tongue,"  forbid 
the  "  unbridled  liberty  of  opinion,"  and  compel  all  the  peo- 
ple to  be  obedient  to  princes,  and  all  princes  obedient  to 
him  !  He  would  exterminate  freemasonry  by  making  "  cor- 
poral punishment "  the  penalty  of  any  association  or  fellow- 
ship with  its  members,  and  death  the  penalty  of  uniting  with 
the  order !  He  would  "  repress,  confound,  annihilate  the  un- 
bridled license  of  speaking,  writing,  and  publishing  !"  And 
last,  but  by  no  means  the  least,  he  would  protect,  encourage, 
and  strengthen  the  corrupt  society  of  Jesuits,  with  all  their 
impious  and  immoral  practices  and  principles,  as  the  "  sacred 
militia  "  of  the  Church,  in  order  that,  by  their  aid,  as  "  vig- 
orous and  experienced  rowers,"  the  world  may  be  carried 
back  to  the  Middle  Ages,  with  himself  as  the  independent 
and  infallible  sovereign  of  a  grand  "  Holy  Empire  !" 

With  this  explanation  of  the  Encyclical,  we  are  better 
prepared  to  comprehend  the  doctrines  of  the  Syllabus — its 
sequel  and  logical  consequence.  Before  proceeding,  how- 
ever, to  analyze  this  most  remarkable  paper,  it  should  be 
observed  that  it  was  put  forth  by  the  pope  expressly  as  a 
judgment  against  all  the  progressive  nations  —  against  all 
existing  civil  and  religious  institutions  npt  in  compati- 
bility with  the  papacy.  This  purpose,  if  denied,  could  not 
be  concealed;  but  the  Jesuits,  whatever  others  may  have 
done,  neither  sought  to  deny  nor  conceal  it.    The  pope,  un- 


212  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

der  their  guidance,  intended  it  as  an  arraignment  of  the 
whole  non-Catholic  world.  To  say  that  he  meant  to  con- 
demn Christian  institutions  would  be,  in  this  unqualified 
form,  uujust  to  him.  But  it  is  precisely  true  to  say  that 
his  immediate  object  was  to  condemn  all  institutions  which 
he  does  not  consider  to  be  Christian.  With  him  Roman  Ca- 
tholicism and  Christianity  mean  the  same  thing.  Institutions 
not  Roman  Catholic  are  not  Christian ;  and  all  people  who 
are  not  Roman  Catholic  are  heretics.  All  these  are  aimed 
at  in  this  official  paper — this  papal  manifesto.  At  the  time 
it  was  issued  Pius  IX.  was  "  King  of  Rome ;"  and  if  he  had 
confined  it  to  the  papal  States — merely  to  the  denunciation 
of  the  means  his  own  subjects  were  then  employing  to  take 
from  him  his  crown  and  temporal  royalty — it  would  have 
had  far  less  significance  than  it  now  has.  But  witnessing, 
as  he  was  compelled  to  do,  the  encroachments  of  the  people 
upon  the  royal  power  all  over  Christendom,  the  gradual  sub- 
stitution of  constitutional  and  representative  government  in 
place  of  the  absolute  monarchies  which  had  so  long  held 
Europe  in  bondage,  the  general  dififusion  of  liberal  senti- 
ments, such  as  favored  the  erection  of  popular  govern- 
ments, the  growing  intelligence  of  the  masses ;  seeing  all 
this,  and  finding  his  throne  in  a  tottering  condition — grad- 
ually moving  from  nnder  him — he  issued  this  pronuncia- 
mento,  from  mere  desperation,  as  the  only  supposed  means 
of  preserving  his  imperialism.  Inasmuch,  therefore,  as  the 
Syllabus  must  be  considered  as  attacking  all  progress  and 
liberalism,  every  thing  which  has  tended  to  carry  the  na- 
tions away  from  the  papacy,  its  censures  were  designed, 
manifestly,  to  fall  most  heavily  upon  those  who  had  con- 
tributed, in  the  greatest  degree,  to  this  result,  upon  the 
United  States  especially,  for  nowhere  else  have  the  prin- 
ciples it  anathematizes  been  carried  so  far.  As  a  Protest- 
ant people,  we  built  our  civil  institutions  upon  the  popular 
plan,  because  that  is  the  most  direct  road  to  political  and  re- 
ligious freedom,  and  because  Protestantism  and  freedom  are 
synonymous  terms,  especially  in  our  national  vocabulary. 
As  a  Roman  Catholic  prince,  the  pope  designed  to  strike 
directly  at  this  plan,  wheresoever  it  existed,  understanding 
perfectly  well  that  the  "divine  right  of  kings"  to  govern 


WHY  PROTESTANTISM  IS  CONDEMNED.  213 

must  be  maintained,  or  the  papacy  would  fall.  We  call 
ourselves  a  Christian  people,  and,  in  doing  so,  include  both 
Protestants  and  Roman  Catholics.  We  think  we  have 
a  Christian  government  also;  that  is,  a  government  which, 
although  the  name  of  God  does  not  appear  in  the  Constitu- 
tion, is  based  upon  the  essential  principles  of  true  Christian- 
ity, and  shelters,  protects,  and  defends  the  worship  of  God, 
in  a  manner  acceptable  to  him,  and  according  to  the  teach- 
ings of  the  Gospel.  But  the  pope  concedes  nothing  of  this. 
All  the  Christians  we  have  in  this  country,  according  to 
him,  are  the  Roman  Catholics ;  all  else  are  heretics  and  in- 
fidels, and,  therefore,  not  Christians.  We  are  classed,  by 
him  and  his  hierarchy,  along  with  the  infidels,  socialists, 
and  Communists  of  Europe.  And  because  Protestantism, 
under  the  lead  of  Luther  and  other  reformers  of  the  six- 
teenth century,  divided  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  and 
because  the  adversary  influences  then  excited  are  still  at 
work,  mostly  from  the  effect  of  our  example,  and  because 
whenever  they  lead  to  the  establishment  of  a  new  form  of 
government,  the  people  become  the  source  of  all  the  civil 
laws,  the  Syllabus  was  aimed,  as  an  exterminating  blow,  at 
the  Protestantism  and  Government  of  the  United  States  ! 
There  is  no  escape  for  its  advocates  from  this  conclusion. 
It  arraigns,  tries,  and  pronounces  judgment  upon  our  insti- 
tutions; and  commands  the  defenders  of  the  papacj^  every- 
where to  unite  in  executing  the  judgment.  It  is,  conse- 
quently, in  plain  but  true  words,  an  insolent  attempt  of  a 
foreign  despot  to  excite,  among  the  Roman  Catholic  part 
of  our  population,  sedition  against  the  Government,  in  or- 
der that  he,  if  success  can  thus  be  won,  may  become  our 
royal  master!  It  urges  them,  by  strong  and  irresistible 
implication,  to  plot  together  for  the  destruction  of  the 
great  principles  for  which  our  fathers  sacrificed  so  much, 
and  which  we  have  prized  more  highly  than  our  lives. 
And  it  stimulates  them  to  untiring  activity  in  this  work 
of  demolition,  by  announcing  that  all  progress  and  liberal- 
ism such  as  we  boast  of,  all  "recent  civilization,"  is  accursed 
of  God ;  arid  that  heaven  can  be  reached  only  by  resist- 
ance to  such  impiety !  It  recognizes  no  form  of  Christian- 
ity but  the  Roman  Catholic  —  no  civilization  but  Roman 


214  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

Catholic  civilization;  whatever  does  not  lean  upon  the  pa- 
pacy for  support  is  infidelity,  atheism,  or,  at  best,  material- 
ism, which,  in  order  to  serve  God  truly,  must  be  extermi- 
nated !  It  points  out  no  source  of  authority  but  the  roy- 
al and  papal  power,  and  proposes  to  substitute  this  power 
for  that  of  the  people  in  the  enactment  of  public  laws.  It 
denounces  revolution,  and  is  itself  revolutionary,  inciting 
rebellion  against  the  just  authority  of  our  National  Consti- 
tution. It  is  a  flagrant  act  of  aggression,  unparalleled,  ex- 
cept in  the  conduct  of  former  popes  —  such  an  act  as  can 
not  pass  unnoticed  and  unrebuked  by  the  people  of  the 
United  States,  unless  they  are  ready  to  give  up  their  free- 
dom and  to  become  slaves. 

The  Syllabus  is  put  forth  under  an  imposing  title,  which 
must  be  taken  as  a  key  to  its  proper  interpretation  :  like 
the  preamble  to  a  law,  it  indicates  the  purpose  of  the  law. 
It  is  called  "  The  Syllabus  of  the  principal  errors  of  our 
time^  which  are  stigmatized  in  the  consistorial  allocutions. 
Encyclical,  and  other  apostolic  letters  of  our  most  holy  fa- 
ther, Pope  Pius  IX."  Each  proposition  which  it  contains, 
therefore,  is  merely  stated  to  be  condemned — to  show  what 
a  large  proportion  of  the  principles  now  prevalent  in  the 
world  are  considered  to  be  errors,  and  the  subjects  of  pa- 
pal censure.  It  contains  eighty  propositions,  arranged  in 
ten  sections,  each  section  constituting  a  distinct  class  of  er- 
rors. That  the  reader  may  see  that  what  has  just  been 
said  is  not  undeservedly  harsh,  a  few  of  its  leading  proposi- 
tions will  be  stated,  with  brief  explanations  of  their  mean- 
ing, to  aid  him  in  the  examination  of  the  document  for  him- 
self ('^) 

Under  the  head  of  "  IndiiFerentism,  Latitudinarianism," 
Proposition  XV.  condemns  the  principle  that  ''^  every  man 
is  free  to  embrace  and  profess  the  religion  he  shall  believe 
true,  guided  by  the  light  of  reason.'*''  He  must  know  but 
little  who  does  not  know  that  this  is  a  direct  condemna- 
tion of  the  principle  upon  which  all  our  American  constitu- 
tions are  based.  It  makes  all  these  constitutions  heretical ; 
and  as  all  the  supporters  of  the  papacy  consider  it  their 

Q^)  Appendix  D. 


DOCTKINES  OF  THE  SYLLABUS.  215 

bounden  duty,  in  the  proper  service  of  God,  to  oppose  her- 
esy^ it  is  a  command  to  them  that  they  shall  oppose  the 
American  idea  that  a  man  has  the  right  to  worship  God 
accordingly  as  his  own  conscience  shall  dictate.  When  this 
idea  is  destroyed,  the  pope  would  have  substituted  for  it  the 
opposite  one,  that,  as  we  are  not  free  to  select  our  own  re- 
ligion, or  to  consult  our  own  consciences  upon  the  subject, 
we  must  be  compelled  to  take  his — that  is,  to  become  Ro- 
man Catholics ;  for  the  absence  of  freedom  implies,  necessa- 
rily, that  there  is  a  power  to  command. 

As  belonging  to  the  same  class.  Proposition  XVIII.  con- 
demns the  principle  that  "Protestantism  is  nothing  more 
than  another  form  of  the  same  true  Christian  religion,  in 
which  it  is  possible  to  be  equally  pleasing  to  God  as  in  the 
Catholic  Church."  This  denies  that  Protestants  have  any 
Christian  faith.  Hence  it  is  the  duty  of  all  Roman  Catho- 
lics to  destroy  it — which,  in  this  country,  can  only  be  done 
by  destroying  our  Protestant  institutions. 

Under  the  class  entitled  "  Errors  concerning  the  Church 
and  her  Rights,"  Proposition  XX.  condemns  the  principle, 
that  "  the  ecclesiastical  power  must  not  exercise  its  authority 
without  the  permission  and  assent  of  the  civil  government.'''' 
This  denies  the  authority  of  the  Government  of  the  United 
States,  or  of  any  State  in  the  Union,  to  make  laws  govern- 
ing every  body  alike — both  clergy  and  laymen.  It  asserts 
that  the  "ecclesiastical  power" — that  is,  the  pope  and  his 
clergy — has  the  right  to  do  what  and  as  it  pleases,  without 
the  "  permission  or  assent "  of  the  State ;  that  it  shall  be 
independent  of  the  State,  and  above  all  the  laws  which  the 
State  may  enact  for  the  government  of  its  citizens.  It  fa- 
vors the  erection  of  a  privileged  class,  superior  to  all  other 
classes,  and,  therefore,  having  the  right  to  govern  them  all. 

Proposition  XXIIL,  in  the  same  class,  denies  that  "  the 
Roman  pontiff  and  ecumenical  councils  have  exceeded  the 
limits  of  their  power,  have  usurped  the  rights  of  princes,  and 
have  even  committed  errors  in  defining  matters  of  faith  and 
morals."  This  justifies  and  indorses  all  that  any  of  the 
popes  have  done  in  reference  to  dethroning  kings,  releas- 
ing their  subjects  from  their  allegiance,  and  bestowing  he- 
retical governments  upon  Roman  Catholic  princes.    It  claims 


216  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

also  that  all  the  popes,  from  the  beginning,  have  been  infal- 
lible in  defining  faith  and  morals. 

Proposition  XXIV.,  of  the  same  class,  condemns  those 
who  assert  that  "the  Church  has  not  the  power  of  availing 
herself  of /orce,  or  any  direct  or  indirect  temporal  power." 
This  necessarily  affirms  the  opposite  of  the  condemned  er- 
ror, and  means  that  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  and  him- 
self as  its  sovereign  head,  has  the  authority  to  employ /orce 
and  the  temporal  power  to  compel  obedience  to  its  decrees. 

Proposition  XXX.,  same  class,  condemns  those  who  say 
that  "the  immunity  of  the  Church  and  of  ecclesiastical 
persons  derives  its  origin  from  civil  law."  Here  it  is  dis- 
tinctly claimed  that  the  Roman  Catholic  clergy,  wherever 
they  may  be,  possess  immunity  above  the  law,  which  ele- 
vates them  into  a  privileged  and  exclusive  class,  above  all 
other  citizens;  makes  them  superior  to  all  others;  and, 
therefore,  renders  it  a  positive  duty  that  all  others  shall 
obey  them. 

Proposition  XXXI.,  same  class,  condemns  the  principle 
that  "  ecclesiastical  courts,  for  the  temporal  causes  of  the 
clergy,  whether  civil  or  criminal,  ought  by  all  means  to  be 
abolished,  even  without  the  concurrence,  and  against  the 
protest,  of  the  Holy  See."  This  is  equivalent  to  the  direct 
assertion  that  the  clergy,  for  all  civil  and  criminal  acts,  no 
matter  how  flagrant,  should  be  tried  by  ecclesiastical  courts 
alone,  and  not  by  the  civil  courts,  where  other  people  are 
tried ;  in  other  words,  that  they  should  try  themselves ! 
This  principle,  so  diametrically  opposed  to  our  political  in- 
stitutions, is  well  understood  by  the  priesthood  and  all 
their  initiated  followers  in  this  country.  The  New  York 
Tablet,  one  of  their  most  prominent  organs,  says : 

"We  do  not  acknowledge  that,  in  a  State  in  which  the 
proper  relations  between  Church  and  State  exist,  the  cler- 
gy are  amenable,  for  their  conduct,  to  the  civil  courts,  or 
come  under  their  jurisdiction.  If  guilty  of  offenses  or 
crimes  punishable  by  the  civil  courts,  they  can  be  tried 
and  punished,  not  in  the  civil  courts,  but  in  the  ecclesiastic- 
al courts.'\'*) 


(")  New  York  Tablet,  April  8th,  1871. 


AUTHOEITY  OF  THE  STATE  DENIED.  217 

Following  up  the  same  idea,  so  as  to  show  what  extent  of 
authority  these  ecclesiastical  or  church  courts  would  have, 
and  how  completely  they  would  be  above  the  State  and  the 
people,  this  same  paper  says : 

"  The  State  has  not  supreme  legislative  authority ;  and 
civil  laws  which  contravene  the  law  of  God  do  not  bind  the 
conscience ;  and  whether  they  do  or  not  contravene  that 
law,  the  Churchy  not  the  State  or  its  courts^  is  the  supreme 

JUDGE."('') 

Thus  the  State  would  become,  in  every  sense,  subordina- 
ted to  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  and  every  one  of  its  laws 
which  the  pope  should,  either  by  himself  or  through  his  hie- 
rarchy, decide  to  be  contrary  to  the  law  of  God,  would  fall, 
because  not  binding  on  the  conscience.     And  thus  the  law 

('^)  New  York  Tablet,  April  8th,  1871.  The  Tablet  has  recently  become 
more  bold  in  announcing  this  doctrine  of  State  dependence.  The  Rev.  Henry 
Asten,  in  a  sermon  preached  in  New  York,  spoke  of  a  gradual  tendency  to- 
ward a  union  of  Church  and  State  in  this  country  in  consequence  of  the 
papal  teachings  ;  and  the  New  York  Herald,  referring  to  what  he  said,  made 
this  remark  :  "  There  are  thousands  of  Catholics  in  this  land  who  do  not  place 
Rome  above  the  United  States,  and  whose  patriotism  can  not  be  measured  by 
fealty  to  religious  dogmas  and  creeds." — Herald,  November  4th,  1872.  To 
this  the  Tablet  replied  : 

"The  Herald  is  behind  the  times,  and  appears  not  yet  to  have  learned 
that  the  '  thousands  of  Catholics '  it  speaks  of  are  simply  no  Catholics  at  all, 
if  it  does  not  misrepresent  them.  Gallicanism  is  a  heresy,  and  he  who  de- 
nies the  papal  supremacy  in  the  government  of  the  Universal  Church  is  as 
far  from  being  a  Catholic  as  he  is  who  denies  the  Incarnation,  or  the  Real 
Presence.  The  Church  is  more  than  country,  and  fealty  to  the  creed  God 
teaches  and  enjoins  through  her  is  more  than  patriotism.  We  must  obey 
God  rather  than  man." 

Referring  then  to  the  questions  raised  by  Mr,  Asten,  it  says  : 

"Eor  ourselves,  we  answer  no  such  questions,  for  our  Church  is  God's 
Church,  and  not  accountable  either  to  State  or  country.'"  —  New  York  Tab- 
let, November  16th,  1872,  vol.  xvi.,  No.  25. 

The  Tablet  and  the  Herald  have  continued  this  controversy  until  the  for- 
mer, unable  otherwise  to  extricate  itself,  has  been  compelled  to  insist  that 
the  basis  of  its  whole  argument  is  the  fact  that  the  power  of  the  Church  over 
temporals  is  derived  from  the  divine  law.     It  says : 

"But  the  power  of  the  pope  over  temporal  sovereigns  never  originated 
in  or  depended  on  his  temporal  sovereignty  of  the  States  of  the  Church,  but 
was  included  in  his  spiritual  authority  as  vicar  of  Christ,  and  was  always  a 
purely  spiritual,  and  in  no  sense  a  temporal  authority." — New  York  Tablet, 
November  23d,  1872,  vol.  xvi.,  No.  26. 


218  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

making  all  citizens  equal,  that  giving  freedom  of  religious 
belief  to  all,  that  which  authorizes  every  man  to  embrace 
what  religious  belief  his  own  conscience  shall  approve,  that 
which  tolerates  different  churches,  that  which  separates  the 
State  from  the  Church,  that  which  secures  free  thought,  free 
speech,  and  a  free  press — in  fine,  all  the  great  principles 
which  lie  at  the  very  basis  of  our  Government,  would  be  de- 
stroyed, because  not  binding  upon  the  Roman  Catholic  con- 
science !  The  pope  understands  this.  All  the  Roman  Cath- 
olic hierarchy  in  the  United  States  understand  it.  And  it  is 
quite  time  that  all  our  Protestant  people  were  beginning  to 
realize  the  necessity  of  resisting  such  arrogant  and  audacious 
pretensions. 

In  the  class  entitled  "  Errors  about  Civil  Society,  consid- 
ered both  in  itself  and  in  its  relation  to  the  Church,"  Propo- 
sition XXXIX.  condemns  the  principle  that  "  the  Republic 
is  the  origin  and  source  of  all  rights  which  are  not  circum- 
scribed by  any  limits;"  which  means,  simply,  that  we  must 
not  look  to  the  State  to  ascertain  what  our  rights  are,  but  to 
the  Church  and  the  pope  ! 

Proposition  XLIL,  in  same  class,  condemns  that  theory 
of  government  which  provides  that  "  in  the  case  of  conflict- 
ing laws  between  the  two  powers  [Church  and  State]  the 
civil  law  ought  to  prevail ;"  which  means  neither  more  nor 
less  than  this :  that  the  laws  prescribed  by  the  pope  and  his 
hierarchy  shall  override  the  laws  of  the  United  States  and 
all  the  States,  that  whenever  they  are  in  conflict  the  latter 
shall  give  way,  and  that  the  pope  shall  become  the  law- 
making power  of  this  country,  and  govern  it  and  all  its  cit- 
izens just  as  he  pleases ! 

Proposition  LY.,  same  class,  condemns  that  principle  of 
government  which  provides  that  ''''the  Church  ought  to  he 
separated  from  the  State,  and  the  State  from  the  Church.'''' 
This  separation  constitutes  one  of  the  leading  features  of 
our  Government  —  one  of  its  most  boasted  characteristics. 
To  denounce  it  is  to  denounce  the  Government.  The  pope 
does  denounce  it,  not  only  here,  by  necessary  implication, 
but  in  many  other  places,  directly  and  immediately.  He  re- 
quires his  hierarchy  to  denounce  it,  and  they  obey  him.  He 
and  they  would  have  the  Church  and  the  State  united,  the 


UNION  OF  STATE  AND  CHURCH.  219 

Ohui'ch  governing  the  State.  And  thus  they  would  put  an 
end  to  our  Government,  which  should  be  held  to  be  the  ob- 
ject of  every  man,  priest  or  layman,  who  advocates  the  doc- 
trines of  this  extraordinary  document. 

In  the  class  entitled  "Errors  concerning  Natural  and 
Christian  Ethics,"  Proposition  LXIII.  condemns  the  princi- 
ple that  "  it  is  allowable  to  refuse  obedience  to  legitimate 
princes,  nay,  more,  to  rise  in  insurrection  against  them."  Our 
Declaration  of  Independence  asserts  this  right  of  resistance 
to  unjust  princes,  and,  but  for  the  maintenance  of  it,  we 
should  have  had  a  monarchical  government  in  this  country, 
instead  of  a  popular  one.  Here,  then,  the  principle  asserted 
by  our  fathers  is  repudiated  and  condemned  by  the  pope, 
and  it  would  follow,  if  his  teachings  should  prevail,  that,  as 
our  Revolution  was  against  God's  law,  therefore  all  the 
rights  we  have  acquired  by  it  are  void,  and  it  will  be  his 
duty,  if  he  can,  to  remit  us  back  again  to  our  original  state 
of  dependence,  and  compel  us  to-  admit  the  divine  right  of 
kings  to  govern  all  mankind,  and  of  the  pope  to  govern  the 
kings ! 

In  the  class  entitled  "Errors  regarding  the  Civil  Power 
of  the  Sovereign  Pontiff,"  Proposition  LXXVI.  condemns 
the  principle  which  asserts  that  "the  abolition  of  the  tempo- 
ral power,  of  which  the  Apostolic  See  is  [was]  possessed,  would 
contribute  in  the  greatest  degree  to  the  liberty  and  prosperity 
of  the  Church."  The  possession  of  the  temporal  power  by 
the  pope  made  him  a  king.  Therefore,  this  is  the  same  as 
to  say  that  it  is  necessary  for  the  Roman  Catholic  religion 
that  the  Church  should  have  a  king ;  and  as  all  the  world 
should  be  governed  by  it  in  order  to  fulfill  the  divine  com- 
mand, hence,  all  the  world  should  be  governed  by  a  king. 
This  makes  the  Church  a  monarchy  at  Rome,  and  if  it  is 
necessary  that  it  should  be  a  monarchy  at  Rome,  it  must,  of 
the  same  necessity,  be  so  elsewhere,  both  in  Europe  and  the 
United  States.  All  Roman  Catholics  insist  that  what  the 
Church  is  at  one  place  it  is  at  all  other  places — that  it  has 
perfect  unity. 

The  last  and  concluding  class  of  condemned  errors  are 
those  "having  reference  to  modern  liberalism."  Among 
these,  Proposition  LXXYII.  condemns  the  principle  which 


220  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER 

asserts  that  "  in  the  present  day  it  is  no  longer  expedient  that 
the  Catholic  religion  shall  be  held  as  the  only  religion  of  the 
State,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  other  modes  of  worship,"  What 
he  means  is  this :  that  it  is  both  proper  and  expedient  that 
the  Roman  Catholic  religion  shall  be  the  only  religion,  and 
that  it  shall  be  made  by  law  the  religion  of  the  State,  to  the 
exclusion  of  every  other.  Now,  he  who  can  not  see  that 
this  would  require  the  destruction  of  Protestantism  and  the 
overthrow  of  our  Government  is  blind,  and  he  who  would 
deny  it  is  worse  than  blind. 

Proposition  LXXVIIL,  of  the  same  class,  condemns  this 
principle  of  toleration  which  follows  the  recognition  of  other 
religions  besides  the  Roman  Catholic  :  "  Whence  it  has  been 
wisely  provided  by  law,  in  some  countries  called  Catholic, 
that  persons  coming  to  reside  therein  shall  enjoy  the  public 
exercise  of  their  own  religjion."  Thus  is  all  relio^ious  tolera- 
tion  stigmatized  as  an  error,  as  against  the  divine  command, 
and  as  inconsistent  with  the  interests  of  the  Roman  Catho- 
lic Church.  By  this  teaching  the  pope  requires  that  those 
Protestants  who  go  to  Roman  Catholic  countries  shall  not 
be  permitted  to  exercise  their  religion  publicly.  What  a 
fitting  response  this  is  to  the  constant  cry  against  Protest- 
ant intolerance  in  this  country,  made  by  those  who  are 
obliged  to  believe  that  religious  toleration  is  offensive  to 
God! 

The  last  proposition,  LXXX.,  is  the  summing-up  of  the 
whole — the  final  conclusion  of  the  papal  mind.  It  is  a 
general  and  wholesale  denunciation  of  all  the  progress 
and  liberalism  of  the  age,  and  shows,  conclusively,  that 
the  pope  would,  if  he  had  the  power,  turn  the  world  back 
into  the  Egyptian  darkness  of  the  mediaeval  times.  He 
condemns  the  principle  which  asserts  that  "  the  Roman 
pontiff  can^  and  ought  to^  reconcile  himself  to,  and  agree 
vnth,  PROGRESS,  LIBERALISM,  a7id  CIVILIZATION,  as  lately  in- 
troducedy  Thus  the  avowal  is  emphatic  that  the  infallible 
pope  must  not  become  reconciled  to,  or  agree  with,  any  of 
these  things !  Standing  alone  in  the  world,  as  God's  repre- 
sentative, he  plants  his  feet  upon  them  all.  As  the  sover- 
eign lord  of  the  universe,  he  repudiates,  denounces,  and 
scorns  them.     The  world  must  not  go  forward,  but  back- 


PROGRESS  AND  LIBERALISM  CONDEMNED.  221 

ward  —  backward,  toward  that  "Holy  Empire"  which  his 
predecessors  struggled  so  hard  to  erect,  in  which  he  would 
make  himself  the  source  of  all  authority,  and  plunge  all 
mankind  into  the  degradation  of  ignorance  and  superstition. 

It  must  be  observed  that  the  pope  is  stating  all  these 
condemned  propositions  as  "the  principal  errors"  which 
he  designs  to  stigmatize.  All  of  them  are  heretical,  and 
must  be  so  accepted  by  the  faithful,  at  the  peril  of  their 
souls.  Will  they  be  so  accepted?  is  the  question  which 
comes  up  in  all  intelligent  minds.  Thousands  of  Roman 
Catholics  in  Europe  have  rejected  them  already,  and  thou- 
sands more  will  do  so.  In  this  country  the  body  of  the 
laymen  have  not  learned  their  import  and  bearing,  but 
have  drifted  along,  in  passive  submission,  under  the  guid- 
ance of  a  priesthood  who  have  tortured  their  ignorant  ac- 
quiescence into  intelligent  assent,  and  have  thus  flattered 
both  the  pope  and  themselves  into  the  belief  that  their 
final  victory  over  Protestantism  and  popular  institutions  is 
near  at  hand.  Will  this  submission  continue?  If  it  does, 
there  is  not  a  virtuous  or  patriotic  heart  in  the  land  that 
does  not  sigh  at  the  contemplation  of  the  consequences 
which  may  follow. 

The  contents  of  the  Encyclical  and  Syllabus  are  unknown 
to  the  most  of  these  laymen.  They  have  appeared  togeth- 
er in  few,  if  any,  of  their  papers  or  periodicals.  A  leading 
Jesuit  journal  of  New  York(^^)  has  published  the  Syllabus, 
but  without  note  or  comment.  It  has  taken  care,  however, 
to  accompany  it,  in  the  same  paper,  with  documents  of  kin- 
dred import,  so  that  such  of  the  faithful  as  should  peruse  it 
would  be  furnished  with  a  key  to  its  proper  interpretation 
— especially  upon  those  points  of  it  which  refer  to  civil  and 
political  afiairs.  One  of  these  is  "  a  great  pastoral  for  East- 
er-Sunday," from  Archbishop  Manning,  wherein  he  instructs 
his  flock  in  reference  to  the  true  principles  upon  which  all 
governments  should  be  based — showing,  what  is  conveyed 
also  by  the  Encyclical  and  Syllabus,  that  those  founded 
upon  the  will  of  the  people  are  all  wrong  and  heretical, 
and  that  none  are  right  but  those  founded  upon  the  relig- 

("')  Saint  Peter,  June  24:th   1871. 


222  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

ion  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  These  are  the  words 
in  which  he  expresses  this  idea: 

"  The  faith  and  knowledge  which  come  from  God  are  the 
sole  base  of  stable  government  and  public  peace.  They 
bind  together  all  orders  of  a  people  by  a  unity  of  mind 
and  will ;  and  they  transmit  the  traditions  of  law,  of  au- 
thority, and  of  obedience  from  generation  to  generation." 

Another  is  "a  great  united  pastoral,"  from  a  number  of 
German  archbishops  and  bishops,  in  May,  1871,  designed 
primarily  to  enforce  obedience  to  the  dogma  of  infallibil- 
ity. In  this  document  an  attempt  is  made  to  defend 
against  the  charge  of  Dr.  Dollinger  and  others,  that  the 
papacy  designs  to  interfere  with  the  domestic  politics  of 
the  States,  and  re-establish  the  "mediaeval  hierarchic  sys- 
tem." But  it  is  so  made  as  to  bear  the  appearance  of  sin- 
cerity to  the  public,  while  at  the  same  time  the  real  object 
is  sufficiently  made  known  to  the  initiated.     They  say : 

"  Of  all  the  bulls  designated  by  the  opponents  of  the  doc- 
trine [infallibity]  as  dangerous  to  the  State,  only  one  is  dog- 
matic^ the  bull  Unam  Smictam  of  Pope  Bonifacius  YIIL, 
and  this  has  been  accepted  by  a  general  council;  so  that  the 
infallibility  of  the  general  councils  and  of  the  Church  would 
be  quite  as  dangerous  to  the  State  as  that  of  the  pope." 

Pope  Boniface  VIII.  strained  the  authority  of  the  papacy 
"to  a  higher  pitch  than  any  of  his  predecessors."('^)  He 
was  not  only  one  of  the  most  ambitious,  but  one  of  the  most 
execrable  and  infamous  of  the  popes,  having  been  charged, 
by  the  authority  of  the  powerful  sovereign,  Philip  the  Fair 
of  France,  with  "  denying  the  immortality  of  the  soul,"  and 
"the  presence  of  Jesus  Christ  in  the  eucharist;"  and  calling 
"the  host  a  piece  of  bread  to  which  he  paid  no  respect;" 
and  maintaining  that  "  the  pope,  being  infallible,  could  com- 
mit incest,  robberies,  and  murders  without  being  criminal, 
and  that  it  was  heresy  even  to  accuse  him  of  having  sin- 
ned ;"  and  "  that  he  openly  proclaimed  fornication  to  be  one 
of  the  most  beautiful  laws  of  nature;"  and  that  he  "lived  in 
concubinage  with  his  two  nieces,  and  had  several  children 


(")  Hallara's  "Middle  Ages,"  chap,  vii.,  p.  304,  Harper  &  Brother's  edi- 
tion. 


THE  VICES  OF  AN  INFALLIBLE  POPE.  223 

by  both  of  them."('')  John  Yillani  copied  and  preserved, 
from  authentic  documents,  some  of  his  axioms,  among  which 
are  the  following :  "  Men  have  souls  like  those  of  beasts  ;  the 
one  are  as  much  immortal  as  the  other."  "  The  Gospel 
teaches  more  falsehoods  than  truths ;  the  delivery  of  the 
Virgin  is  absurd ;  the  incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God  is  ridic- 
ulous ;  the  dogma  of  transubstantiation  is  a  folly."  "  The 
sums  of  money  which  the  fable  of  Christ  has  produced  the 
priests  are  incalculable."  "Religions  are  created  by  the 
ambitious  to  deceive  men."  "  Ecclesiastics  must  speak  like 
the  people,  but  they  have  not  the  same  belief."  "  It  is  no 
greater  sin  to  abandon  one's  self  to  pleasure  with  a  young 
girl  or  boy  than  to  rub  one's  hands  together."  "  We  must 
sell  in  the  Church  all  that  the  simple  wish  to  buy."('') 

This  pope  was,  of  course,  infallible  (!)  by  virtue  of  the  de- 
cision of  the  Council  of  Trent,  which  teaches  that,  "however 
wncked  and  flagitious,  it  is  certain  that  they  still  belong  to 
the  Church ;  and  of  this  the  faithful  are  frequently  to  be  re- 
minded, in  order  to  be  convinced  that,  were  even  the  lives 
of  our  ministers  debased  by  crime,  they  are  still  within  her 
pale,  and,  therefore,  lose  no  part  of  their  power,  with  which 
her  ministry  invests  them."('^'')  And  being  incapable  of  com- 
mitting any  error  in  matters  concerning  the  powers  of  the 
papacy  and  the  welfare  of  the  Church,  being,  in  these  re- 
spects, the  "  vicegerent  of  God,"  though  as  a  man  he  was 
utterly  debased,  his  bull  TJnam  Sanctam  was  an  act  of 
infallibility,  and,  therefore,  these  German  bishops  solemnly 
announce,  in  this  pastoral,  that  it  has  been  "  accepted  by  a 
general  council;"  that  it  has,  consequently, become  "dogmat- 
ic," and  is  now  a  part  of  the  religious  faith  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  which  all  its  members  are  bound  to  enter- 
tain, and  which  only  heretics  deny.  They  do  not  publish 
the  bull,  for  it  would  contradict,  in  flat  terms,  what  had  just 
preceded  the  reference  to  it  in  the  pastoral,  and  thus  startle 
the  public  mind.  Besides,  in  addressing  the  priesthood, 
there  was  no  necessity  for  this ;  for  they  know  already  that 

Q^)  Cormenin,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  35,  36.  O  Ibid.,  p.  37. 

C^")  "Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent," pp.  73,  74.  Published  under 
the  sanction  of  Pope  Pius  V.  Translated  by  Rev.  I.  Donovan.  F.  Lucas, 
Jun.,  Baltimore,  1829. 


224  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

of  all  the  bulls  issued  by  all  the  popes,  from  the  beginning, 
that  called  Unani  Sanctam  stands  alone  in  impudence  and 
audacity.  Inasmuch,  then,  as  this  bull  is  thus  declared  to 
be  binding  upon  the  conscience  of  all  the  Roman  Catholics 
of  the  world,  and  is  pointed  out  to  the  priesthood,  in  the 
very  paper  which  contains  the  Syllabus,  as  the  key  to  its  in- 
terpretation, its  contents  should  be  generally  understood,  so 
that  the  public  judgment  may  be  correctly  formed.  This  is 
what  it  says : 

"Either  sword  is  in  the  power  of  the  Church,  that  is  to 
say,  the  spiritual  and  the  material.  The  former  is  to  be  used 
by  the  Church,  but  the  latter  for  the  Church.  The  one  in 
the  hand  of  the  priest,  the  other  in  the  hands  of  kings  and 
soldiers,  but  at  the  will  and  pleasure  of  the  priest.  It  is 
right  that  the  temporal  sword  and  authority  be  subject  to 
the  spiritual  power.  Moreover,  we  declare,  say,  define,  and 
pronounce  that  every  human  being  should  be  subject  to  the 
Roman  pontiff ^  to  be  an  article  of  necessary  faith.''"' {^^) 

With  this  distinct  explanation  of  the  politico- religious 
faith  promulgated  by  the  infallible  popes,  and  sanctioned  by 
a  general  council,  before  us,  we  can  fully  understand  the 
Encyclical  and  Syllabus  of  Pius  IX.,  and  should  be  at  no 
loss  to  tell  what  Archbishop  Manning  meant  when  he  said, 
"  the  hated  Syllabus  will  have  its  justification,''''  and  "  woidd 
have  saved  society  P''  Its  justification  will  be  found  in  the 
complete  wreck  of  all  the  Protestant  and  non- Catholic  na- 
tions, whose  people  are  to  be  saved  from  themselves  by 
being  made  the  degraded  and  miserable  subjects  of  the  pa- 
pacy.   And  then,  when  the  Jesuit  shout  of  gratified  revenge 


(^^)  Hallam's  "Middle  Ages,"  chap,  vii.,  p.  303 ;  Bowling's  "  History  of 
Romanism," p.  353;  Du  Pin's  "Ecclesiastical  History," vol.  xii.,  p.  7. 

That  the  classical  reader  may  translate  this  celebrated  bull  for  himself,  it 
is  given  in  the  original,  as  follows  : 

"Uterq\ie  est  in  potestate  ecclesise,  spiritalis  scilicet  gladius  et  materialis. 
Sed  is  quidem  pro  ecdesia,  ille  vero  ab  ecclesia  exercendus :  ille  sacerdotis, 
is  manu  regum  ac  militum,  sed  ad  nutum  et  patientium  sacerdotis.  Oportet 
autem  gladium  esse  sub  gladio,  et  temporalem  auctoritatem  spiritali  subjici 
potestati.  Porro  suhesse  Romano  Pontijici  omni  humance  creaturce  declara- 
mus,  dicimus,  dejinimus^  et  pronunciamus  omnino  esse  de  necessitate  fidei.^^ — 
Extrav.^  lib.  i.,  tit.  viii.,  c.  1.    Apud  Ilallam  and  Dowling,  ut  supra. 


THE  POPE'S  DIVINE  RIGHT.  225 

shall  go  up  from  Rome,  and  the  debris  of  shattered  popular 
governments  shall  be  lying  all  around,  the  temporal  sword 
will  be  drawn  "  at  the  will  and  pleasure  of  the  priest,"  and 
he  who  shall  dare  to  question  that  all  this  is  the  will  of  God, 
will  be  racked  in  every  limb  by  the  tortures  of  the  Inquisi- 
tion, or  consumed  by  its  re-enkindled  flames. 

15 


226  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 


CHAPTER  VIII.  -:. 

Infallibility  before  the  late  Decree. — The  Pope's  Temporal  Power  not  Di- 
vine.— The  Italian  People. — The  Government  of  the  Papal  States. — Jes- 
uitism.— Mutilation  of  Books  at  Rome. — Union  of  Church  and  State  by 
Constantino. — His  Grant  Supposititious. — He  did  not  unite  with  the 
Church  of  Rome. — Rome  was  governed  by  Imperial  Officers. — The  Apos- 
tles had  no  Temporal  Power. 

It  was  asserted  by  Protestants  generally,  before  the  de- 
cree of  papal  infallibility  was  passed,  that  if  that  doctrine 
could  ever  obtain  the  approval  of  a  general  council,  it 
would  be  employed  to  advance  the  favorite  theory  of  the 
Jesuits,  that  the  spiritual  power  of  the  pope  includes  the 
temporal  as  one  of  its  necessary  incidents,  inasmuch  as  it 
belonged  to  the  primacy  of  Peter,  and  was  divinely  con- 
ferred upon  him.  The  Jesuits  themselves  practiced  no  du- 
plicity upon  this  question,  but  openly  asserted  their  doc- 
trine with  a  confidence  which  would  now  seem  to  have 
been  awakened  by  a  perfect  knowledge  of  their  power 
over  all  the  authorities  of  the  Church,  including  the  pope. 
Their  boldness  won  them  the  victory,  and  they  are  now 
complete  masters  of  the  situation.  All  the  energies  of  the 
Church,  in  so  far  as  the  pope  is  enabled  to  arouse  them,  are 
placed  under  their  guidance ;  and  even  the  venerable  pon- 
tiff himself  is  spending  the  close  of  a  long  and  honorable  life 
in  endeavoring  to  establish  the  doctrine  they  have  maintain- 
ed so  earnestly  as  an  essential  and  indispensable  part  of  the 
true  faith.  With  his  vanity  flattered  by  their  caresses,  and 
persuaded  to  believe  that  he  stands  in  the  place  of  God 
on  earth,  he  omits  no  opportunity  of  declaring  that  he  has 
been  appointed  by  divine  decree  to  direct  and  regulate  all 
such  secular  affairs  as  pertain  in  any  way  to  the  Church,  its 
faith,  its  discipline,  and  the  universality  of  its  sovereignty. 

Of  those  within  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  who  were 
unwilling  to  accept  this  doctrine,  there  were  two  classes: 
one  denying  the  infallibility  of  the  pope,  and  claiming  it 


THE  POPE'S  PATRIMONY  NOT  DIVINE.  227 

only  for  the  Universal  Church ;  and  the  other  insisting  that 
if  it  were  recognized  it  would  confer  no  temporal  power 
upon  the  pope,  because  it  was  not  necessarily  included  in 
the  spiritual,  and  had  not  been  divinely  established  as  an 
incident  to  the  primacy  of  Peter.  To  this  latter  class,  it 
may  be  fairly  said,  belonged  a  considerable  portion,  if  not 
a  majority,  of  the  Roman  Catholics  in  the  United  States. 
These  had  not  yet  felt  the  tremendous  pressure  of  the  Jes- 
uit power,  and  honestly  endeavored,  by  this  argument,  to 
remove  what  they  considered  to  be  Protestant  prejudice 
against  their  Church.  It  was  not  composed  entirely  of 
laymen,  but  included  some  of  the  prelates  and  clergy,  who 
were  not  yet  prepared  to  turn  over  the  Church  to  Jesuit 
dominion.  They  could  not  see  how  it  was  possible,  if  God 
had  made  the  temporal  an  appendage  to  the  spiritual  pow- 
er, that  so  many  centuries  should  have  elapsed  without  its 
announcement  by  the  Church  in  some  authoritative  form. 
And  they  were  encouraged  in  this  by  the  highest  ecclesias- 
tical authority  in  the  United  States. 

In  1848,  Archbishop  Kenrick,  of  Baltimore,  prepared  for 
the  press  a  treatise  on  the  Primacy,  in  which  great  learn- 
ing and  ability  are  displayed.  It  was  published  in  that 
year,  and  a  sixth  revised  edition  was  also  published  in 
1867.  When  he  comes  to  speak  of  the  relations  between 
the  pope  and  secular  affairs,  he  begins  his  first  chapter  on 
the  "Patrimony  of  St.  Peter"  with  this  emphatic  sentence: 
"The  primacy  is  essentially  a  spiritual  office,  which  has  not, 
of  dimne  right,  any  temporal  appendage.''''  The  "small  prin- 
cipality in  Italy"  over  which  he  is  sovereign  is,  he  says,  des- 
ignated "  the  Patrimony  of  St.  Peter,"  on  account  of  its  hav- 
ing been  "attached  to  the  pontifical  office,  through  rever- 
ence for  the  Prince  of  the  Apostles."  He  declares  that  this 
"has  no  necessary  connection  vnth  the  primacy  f  and  because 
"  Catholics  not  living  within  the  Roman  States  are  not  sub- 
ject %o  the  civil  authority  of  the  pope,"  he  treated  of  it  no 
further  than  to  trace  its  history ;(')  and  to  this  we  shall  have 
occasion  hereafter  to  refer. 


(')  "The  Primacy  of  the  Apostolic  See,"  by  Archbishop  Kenrick,  sixth 
edition,  p.  255. 


228  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

He  says  again :  "  In  making  Peter  the  ruler  of  his  king- 
dom, he  [Christ]  did  not. give  him  dominion^  or  wealth,  or 
any  of  the  appendages  of  royalty.^'' {^)  Then,  going  on  to 
show  that  "  the  Bishop  of  Home  was  not  yet  a  temporal  sov- 
ereig?i''\^)  at  the  time  of  Leo  the  Great— the  middle  of  the 
fifth  century — he  says  also,  at  another  place,  that  the  power 
of  interfering  with,  and  regulating,  the  "political  order"  in 
the  nations  was  vested  in  the  popes  "  by  the  force  of  circum- 
stances," and  was  not  "  a  divine  prerogative  of  their  office."(*) 

What  Roman  Catholic  archbishop,  or  bishop,  or  priest,  in 
the  United  States  would  repeat  these  words  to-day?  See, 
again,  what  the  pope  says:  "The  civil  sovereignty  of  the 
Holy  See  has  been  given  to  the  Roman  pontiff  by  a  singu- 
lar counsel  of  Divine  Providence;"  and  as  "regards  the  re- 
lations of  the  Church  and  civil  society,"  "all  the  preroga- 
tives, and  all  the  rights  of  authority  necessary  to  govern- 
ing the  Universal  Church,  have  been  received  by  us,  in  the 
person  of  the  most  blessed  Peter,  directly  from  God  him- 
self''^) Has  the  faith  changed  ?  Did  not  Archbishop  Ken- 
rick  understand  what  it  was?  Was  he  a  heretic  ?  But  this 
conflict  of  authority  is  in  no  other  way  important  to  us  than 
to  show  how  the  honest  apprehensions  of  Roman  Catholics 
in  the  United  States  were  allayed  before  the  pope's  infalli- 
bility was  announced,  and  to  excite  to  such  inquiry  as  will 
show  how,  in  reality,  the  temporal  power  was  acquired  — 
whether  it  is  of  God  or  man,  whether  it  was  obtained  le- 
gitimately or  by  usurpation.  Thus  we  shall  be  better  pre- 
pared to  understand  the  import  of  the  issues  which  the  pa- 
pacy has  precipitated  upon  us. 

Archbishop  Kenrick  did  not  consider  it  necessary,  in  his 
work  on  the  Primacy,  to  treat  of  the  pope's  temporal  power 
in  Rome,  any  further  than  to  trace  its  history.  Nor  was  it 
necessary  that  he  should  do  so,  in  view  of  his  denial  of  its 
divine  origin.  He  did  not  consider  it  to  be  a  part  of  the 
faith  of  the  Church  that  he,  or  any  body  else,  should  believe 
that  it  was  conferred  by  Christ  upon  Peter,  and  had  come 
down  through  an  unbroken  line  of  succession  to  the  present 

(")  "The  Primacy  of  the  Apostolic  See,"  by  Archbishop  Kenrick,  sixth 
edition,  p.  255. 

O  Ibid.,  p.  257.  (0  Ibid.,  p.  276.  O  Ante,  chap,  vi.,  p.  1G2. 


CIVIL  GOVERNMENT  IN  ROME.  229 

pope.  The  new  order  of  things,  however — the  introduction 
of  the  new  faith — gives  great  importance  to  the  question ; 
because  if  it  be  true  that  the  temporal  power  of  the  pope, 
anywhere,  is  of  divine  origin,  then  the  new  faith  is  right  and 
the  old  faith  wrong ;  and  the  world  may  reasonably  expect 
that,  either  by  its  own  consent  or  the  providences  of  God,  it 
may  yet  be  compelled  to  admit  its  universality.  If,  on  the 
other  hand,  it  had  its  origin  in  fraud,  usurpation,  and  im- 
posture, those  of  us  to  whom  the  charge  of  infidelity  is  now 
imputed  may  breathe  more  freely. 

Can  it  be  possible  that  the  Italian  people  violated  the  law 
of  God  by  the  act  of  terminating  the  pope's  temporal  power 
in  the  Papal  States  ?  and  that  they  have  thereby  cut  them- 
selves off  from  reasonable  hopes  of  heaven,  unless  they  shall 
restore  it?  Or  were  they  justified,  after  the  example  of  the 
United  States,  in  throwing  off  the  papal  yoke  and  adopting 
a  form  of  government  which,  although  monarchical,  is  rep- 
resentative? If  the  former — if  God  did  make  Peter  king  of 
Rome,  and  Pius  IX.  his  successor  in  royal  authority — then 
no  such  justification  can  exist,  revolution  is  offensive  to 
God,  and  every  government  which  has  grown  out  of  it  must 
stand  accursed  at  the  bar  of  heaven.  Arraigned,  as  we  are, 
upon  such  a  charge,  both  as  principals  and  accessories,  we 
must  be  allowed  the  privilege  of  the  most  abandoned  crim- 
inal, the  right  to  plead  to  the  jurisdiction  of  his  triers. 

It  is  a  common  remark  of  the  supporters  of  the  papacy, 
that  the  civil  Government  of  Rome  and  the  Papal  States, 
by  the  pope  and  his  curia,  was  altogether  paternal,  that  it 
looked  carefully  after  the  interests  of  the  people,  was  most 
considerate  of  their  happiness,  and  was,  in  fact,  one  of  the 
best  governments  in  the  world.  If  this  were  true,  it  is  not 
easy,  according  to  any  ordinary  rules  of  reasoning,  to  ac- 
count for  the  fact  that  Pope  Pius  IX.  has  held  the  temporal 
sceptre,  during  all  the  years  of  his  long  pontificate,  by  an  ex- 
ceedingly frail  and  uncertain  tenure.  To  him,  as  a  king, 
there  could  be  no  strong  personal  objections.  He  is  repre- 
sented as  kind-hearted  and  benevolent,  and,  no  doubt,  truth- 
fully so.     Even  Gavazzi  concedes  as  much.C)      But  these 

C)  Gavazzi's  "Lectures  and  LifjR,"  p.  230. 


230  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

very  qualities  may  unfit  him  for  the  duties  of  government, 
by  subjecting  him  to  the  undue  influence  of  men  around 
him,  who  play  upon  them.  Such  has,  undoubtedly,  been  the 
case.  Antonelli,  his  Cardinal  Secretary  of  State,  is  under- 
stood to  be  both  ambitious  and  unscrupulous,  just  such  a 
man  as  would  hold  the  curia  and  all  the  inferior  oflicers  of 
government  in  strict  subordination  to  his  will.(')  He  would, 
in  all  probability,  have  little  difficulty  in  dictating  the  policy 
and  measures  of  the  administration.  If  the  pope  has  ambi- 
tion, he  could  excite  it ;  if  he  has  none,  he  could  create  it. 
Thus  we  may  account  for  their  joint  efiTorts  to  check  the  cur- 
rent of  adverse  circumstances  which  have,  during  the  pres- 
ent pontificate,  pressed  upon  the  papacy,  and  rendered  it 
necessary  that  the  pope  should  be  held  upon  his  throne  by 
French  bayonets.  Thus,  also,  may  we  account  for  the  En- 
cyclical and  Syllabus,  and  other  papal  bulls  and  briefs, 
wherein  the  attempt  is  made  to  w^eld  religion  and  politics 
together,  and  make  it  appear  that  the  people,  however  op- 
pressed, have  no  more  right  to  resist  the  divine  right  of 

C)  Mr.  Edmund  About,  a  modern  writer,  and  Galilean  Catholic,  thus 
speaks  of  Pius  IX.  : 

"The  character  of  this  honest  old  man  is  made  up  of  devotion,  of  good 
nature,  of  vanity,  of  weakness,  and  of  obstinacy ;  with  a  spice  of  malice, 
which  peeps  out  from  time  to  time.  He  blesses  with  unction,  and  pardons 
with  difficulty  ;  a  good  priest,  and  an  incompetent  king." — The  Roman  Ques- 
tion, by  About,  p.  135. 

Of  Cardinal  Antonelli  he  says  :  "He  was  born  in  a  den  of  thieves." — P. 
140.  "  He  seems  a  minister  ingrafted  on  a  savage." — P.  147.  "All  classes 
of  society  hate  him  equally. " — Ibid. 

F.  Petruccelli  de  la  Gattina,  who  has  continued  the  discussion  of  the  ques- 
tions begun  by  Mr.  About,  does  not  speak  so  favorably  of  the  pope.  He 
says:  "The  mildness  of  Pius  IX.  resembles  those  coverings  which  are  put 
on  old  arm-chairs,  to  conceal  stains  and  rents."  —  Rome  and  the  Papacy  : 
its  Men,  Manners,  and  Government  in  the  Nineteenth  Century,  by  F.  Pe- 
truccelli de  la  Gattina,  p.  272.  He  continues  :  "  He  does  not  elevate  himself 
to  the  stature  of  God,  but  shrinks  God  to  the  stature  of  a  poor  priest,  and 
drags  him  into  all  the  follies,  passions,  and  interests  of  a  caste  which  is  con- 
founded with  humanity." — P.  277. 

He  also  condemns  Antonelli  in  the  strongest  terms,  by  speaking  of  "  the 
thefts,  the  villainies,  the  rudeness  of  this  cardinal." — P.  275.  Of  the  papacy, 
imder  his  guidance,  he  says,  it  "  is  like  the  subterranean  sewers  of  large  cities; 
it  carries  all  the  filth ;  and  where  it  is  stopped  and  filters,  it  spreads  infection 
and  death."— P.  292. 


PAPAL  DESPOTISM  IN  ROME.  231 

kings  than  they  have  to  violate  the  ten  commandments. 
That  the  papal  government  was  oppressive  has  been  settled 
by  the  Italian  people,  hitherto  the  most  devout  Roman  Cath- 
olics in  the  world.  By  their  act,  that  fact,  as  such,  is  enti- 
tled to  a  place  in  history ;  and  that  they  were  justified  in  it, 
as  we  were  justified  in  our  Revolution,  a  brief  recital  of  facts 
will  abundantly  show. 

The  Papal  States,  during  the  pope's  temporal  dominion, 
were  held  as  religious  property — as  "  an  ecclesiastical  bene- 
fice.'''' The  people  were  considered  as  so  many  tenants,  who 
occupied  and  enjoyed  the  estate  on  "the  condition  affixed 
by  the  infallible  head  of  the  Church,  for  her  welfare,  and  not 
their  owny  They  possessed  no  civil  rights  whatever,  in  the 
sense  in  which  the  world  holds  them,  but  only  such  privi- 
leges as  their  sovereign,  the  pope,  thought  proper  to  confer 
upon  them ;  and  these  could  be  changed,  modified,  or  wholly 
withdrawn,  at  his  personal  discretion,  or  whenever  the  inter- 
ests of  the  Church  should  require  it.  If  the  Government 
was  a  trust,  held  alone  for  the  benefit  of  the  Church,  as  pa- 
pists allege,  then  the  people  had  no  right  to  demand  of  it 
any  thing  on  their  own  account.  The  Government  was  con- 
ducted wholly  without  reference  to  them,  and  they  were  re- 
quii'ed  to  submit  to  whatsoever  it  did,  and  to  all  the  laws 
proclaimed  by  the  papacy.  Popular  liberty  was,  therefore, 
unknown,  and  was  impossible.  The  papacy  alone  was  free 
to  do  as  it  pleased ;  and  this  was  called  the  freedom  of  the 
Church!  The  people,  having  thus  no  voice  in  public  affairs, 
were  in  a  condition  of  vassalage.  The  Government  was  a 
revival,  with  slight  exceptions,  of  the  old  system  of  feudal- 
ism, without  its  redeeming  features.  There  was  no  change, 
or  promise  of  change :  every  thing  moved  on  in  the  old 
grooves  which  had  been  worn  by  centuries  of  papal  abso- 
lutism.    A  writer  who  personally  observed  this  says : 

"At  every  appeal  to  alienate  any  part  of  his  sacred  estate, 
or  to  grant  any  privileges  to  his  subjects,  on  the  ground  of 
their  inherent  rights,  the  pope  talks  of  Constantine,  and  Pe- 
pin, and  the  blessed  Countess  Matilda,  and,  shaking  his  in- 
fallible head,  doggedly  thunders,  ^^JVon  possumus  P\^) 

C)  "Inner  Rome," by  Rev.  C,  M.  Butler,  p.  15..     This  book  deserves  ex- 


232  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

There  was  no  written  constitution,  not  even  a  collection 
of  precedents,  from  which  the  citizen  could  learn  the  extent 
or  nature  of  the  privileges  conceded  to  him.  Whatever  of 
fundamental  law  there  was  could  be  found  only  in  the  de- 
crees, canons,  and  constitutions  of  councils,  and  the  bulls 
and  briefs  of  popes,  published  in  a  language  which  none  but 
the  educated  nobility  could  understand.  Ecclesiasticism  ab- 
sorbed all  secular  as  well  as  all  spiritual  power.  Cardinals, 
prelates,  and  priests  were  a  privileged  class,  and  did  as  they 
pleased.  On  one  occasion  a  priest  "  endeavored  to  induce  a 
hackman  to  take  him  at  a  lower  than  his  usual  fare,"  and, 
upon  his  refusal  to  do  so,  he  was  imprisoned  for  several 
weeks. (')  As  late  as  1851,  Bertolotti,  "Inquisitor-general 
of  the  Holy  See,"  published  a  papal  edict  defining  certain 
crimes  to  which  penalties  were  affixed,  and  the  duties  of  in- 
formers. These  included  "all  heretics;"  all  guilty  of  any 
"  acts  from  which  can  be  inferred  a  compact,  express  or  tac- 
it, with  the  devil ;"  all  who  should  "  hinder  in  any  manner 
whatever  the  proceedings  of  the  office  of  the  Holy  Inquisi- 
tion ;"  all  who  published  "  writings  against  the  high-priest, 
the  sacred  colleges,  superiors,  ecclesiastics,  or  against  the 
regular  orders;"  all  "who  without  license  retain  writings 
and  prints  which  contain  heresies,  or  the  books  of  heretics;" 
and  all  who  "have  eaten,  or  given  to  others  to  eat,  meat, 
eggs,  lattici7ii  (the  products  of  milk),  on  forbidden  days,  in 
contempt  of  the  precepts  of  the  Church."  And,  as  encour- 
agement to  informers,  it  was  provided  that  "  whoever  fails 
to  denounce  the  above  criminals  to  the  Holy  Inquisitor  and 
special  delegate  against  *  heretical  pravity  '  shall  be  subject 
to  excommunication!''''  What  triflins:  with  sacred  thinors! 
Under  this  parental  (!)  government,  if  a  poor  Italian  should 
have  written  a  word  against  a  profligate  priest,  who  might 

tensive  circulation.  It  presents  an  admirable  portrait  of  the  political,  relig- 
ious, and  social  condition  of  Rome,  as  observed  by  the  author  during  a  resi- 
dence there  of  two  years.  I  have  known  Dr.  Butler  many  years,  and  for* 
myself  rely  implicitly  upon  what  he  says.  He  is  corroborated  in  his  views  of 
the  civil  government  in  the  Papal  States  by  M.  About  and  La  Gattina  in  their 
works,  from  which  quotations  have  been  made.  Both  of  these  have  been 
translated  from  the  French,  and  published  in  this  country. 
(')  "Inner  Rome, "by  Rev.  C.  M.  Butler,  pp.  15,  16. 


THE  INQUISITION  IN  ROME.  233 

have  tried  to  rob  his  home  of  its  most  precious  treasure,  or 
should  have  been  found  with  a  Protestant  Bible  in  his  house, 
or  a  history  of  the  American  Revolution,  or  the  Life  of  Wash- 
ington, or  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  or  the  Dec- 
laration of  Independence,  he  would  have  been  arraigned 
before  the  "Holy  Inquisitor,"  punished  as  a  criminal,  shut 
out  from  the  Church  by  excommunication,  and  visited  with 
the  wrath  of  God,  for  violation  of  his  divine  commands! 
And  this  several  centuries  after  the  close  of  the  Middle 
Ages — after  the  world  has  been  lifted  out  of  darkness  into 
light ! 

The  precise  punishment  for  these  several  degrees  of  crime 
was  not  defined — almost  every  thing  being  left  to  the  discre- 
tion of  the  Inquisition.  Its  general  character,  however,  may 
be  inferred  from  a  document  published  in  1850  by  the  car- 
dinal archbishop,  cardinal  bishop,  and  other  archbishops  and 
bishops  of  the  Marches  and  of  the  province  of  Umbria.  Re- 
ferring to  the  crimes  of  "  blasphemy,  inobservance  of  the  sa- 
cred days,  profanation  of  the  churches,  and  violation  of  fasts, 
and  immoralities,"  this  edict  fixes  as  penalties,  according  to 
circumstances,  "excommunication,  or  imprisonment,  or  fines, 
or  castigation,  or  exile,  or  even  death."  It  provides  that 
"  the  names  of  the  informer  and  the  witnesses  shall  be  kept 
secret,"  so  that  the  offender  may  never  know  who  are  his 
accusers,  or  have  an  opportunity  openly  to  confront  them, 
and  that  half  the  fines  shall  go  to  the  informer  and  officers 
executing  the  law,  and  the  other  half  "  to  the  benefit  of  holy 
places."("')  It  is  impossible,  in  the  very  nature  of  things, 
that  such  a  system  of  government  as  this  could  have  been 
otherwise  than  harsh,  severe,  and  oppressive — the  very  em- 
bodiment of  tyranny.  Can  it  be  possible  that  God  design- 
ed the  human  family  to  be  subject  to  the  perpetual  curse 
of  such  rule  as  this,  and  cut  them  off,  by  a  divine  decree, 
from  all  possibility  of  its  removal  without  sin?  If  he  did, 
how  happens  it  that  he  has  not  long  ago,  as  he  did  with  the 
pursuers  of  the  Israelites,  cast  the  revolutionary  innovators, 
"horse  and  rider,  into  the  sea?" 

In  1861,  a  large  crowd  assembled  in  the  Corso  and  in 

O  "Inner  Rome," by  Rev.  C.  M.  Butler,  pp.  17-19. 


234  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

Monte  Citorio,  and  shouted  "  Yiva  Italia/  Viva  Vittorio 
ImmaiiueleP''  They  were  immediately  fired  upon  by  the 
papal  gensdarmes — one  of  whom  was  stabbed  in  the  melee. 
For  this  a  man  by  the  name  of  Locatelli  was  arrested  and 
tried.  Although  there  was  no  evidence  identifying  him 
with  the  transaction,  yet  he  was  convicted  and  executed ! 
Even  the  President  of  the  Sacra  Consulta,  when  he  present- 
ed the  record  of  conviction  to  the  pope,  advised  him,  in  view 
of  the  insufficiency  of  the  evidence,  "  to  exercise  clemency." 
But  "the  pope,  who  can  not  sign  a  sentence  of  death,  laid 
over  this  document  the  fatal  black  rihhon^  and  Locatelli  died, 
shouting  "  Viva  Italia Ti^^) 

The  cases  of  punishment  by  imprisonment  and  exile  for 
"political  crimes"  are  too  numerous  for  detail,  and  too  hor- 
rible to  be  recited  with  composure.  Dr.  Butler  mentions 
some  of  exceeding  cruelty  and  hardship,  where  native  Ro- 
mans were  banished  for  the  suspicion  of  being  opposed  to 
the  Papal  Government.  This  class  of  criminals  are  special- 
ly sought  after  by  the  police  who  infest  the  country.  And 
so  odious  had  this  papal  police  become  in  consequence  of 
the  manner  in  which  they  broke  in  upon  the  most  sacred 
privacy  of  the  citizens,  that  "  no  Roman  vnll  enter  into  this 
hated  service.  No  Roman  would  probably  be  trusted  in  it. 
It  is  made  up  oi  foreigners  of  various  nations.  JMany  of 
them  are  criminals  and  disbanded  soldiers  of  Francis  II. 
So  detested  are  they  by  the  Roman  people  that  it  is  not 
considered  safe  for  them  to  make  arrests  during  the  day. 
They  are  made  at  night,  or  in  the  early  dawn."(^'^) 

Religious  toleration  was  unknown.  English  Protestants 
were  permitted  to  hold  their  services  only  within  the  Porto 
•  del  Popolo ;  and  no  Protestants  whatever  were  allowed  to 
do  so  within  the  walls  of  Rome !  "  Gendarmes  guard  the 
door  of  the  English  chapel  to  see  that  none  of  the  faithful 
stray  into  those  poisoned  pastures."  In  1862,  Protestant 
services  were  performed  at  the  house  of  an  American  lady, 
about  twenty  miles  back  of  Rome,  on  the  Alban  Hills ;  and 
upon  being  discovered  by  the   gendarmes,  it  was  broken 

(")  "Inner  Rome,"  by  Rev.  C.  M.  Butler,  pp.  21-23. 
(";  Ibid.,  p.  38. 


THE  JESUITS  IN  ROME.  235 

up!('^)  The  informer  in  this  case  was  supposed  to  have 
been  a  man  of  whom  it  is  related  that  he  was  a  poor  and 
humble  citizen,  without  any  title,  but  that  the  pope,  being 
once  compelled  to  pass  the  night  in  his  house,  and  it  being 
derogatory  to  his  official  and  personal  dignity  to  "  sleep  un- 
der the  roof  of  an  untitled  citizen,"  he  made  the  poor  fellow 
"  a  Roman  noble  before  going  to  bed,  and  slept  with  a  good 
conscience  !"(^*) 

There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  many  of  these 
measures  of  severity  are  to  be  traced  to  the  influence  of 
the  Jesuits  at  Rome.  It  is  well  understood  that  all  the 
machinery  of  the  Papal  Government  has  been  directed  by 
them  for  a  number  of  years;  and  their  whole  history  shows 
that  whenever  they  possess  power,  it  is  employed  with  a 
single  object  only — to  advance  the  interests  and  perpetuate 
the  debasing  principles  of  their  order.  An  ex-priest,  a  Ro- 
man by  birth,  who  was  once  curate  of  the  Magdalene  parish 
in  Rome,  professor  of  theology  in  the  Roman  University,  and 
qualificator  at  the  Inquisition,  thus  expresses  himself: 

"  From  the  period  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  Roman  Ca- 
tholicism has  identified  itself  with  Jesuitism.  That  unscru- 
pulous order  has  been  known  to  clothe  itself,  when  occasion 
required,  with  new  forms,  and  to  give  a  convenient  elasticity 
to  its  favorite  maxim,  that  the  end  is  every  thing,  and  all  the 
means  to  attain  it  are  good.  But  by  depending  on  the  skill- 
ful tactics  of  the  '  Society  of  Jesus,'  the  court  of  Rome  has 
been  constrained  to  yield  to  its  ascendency,  confide  her  des- 
tiny to  its  hands,  and  permit  it  to  direct  her  interests;  and 
of  this  control  Jesuitism  has  availed  itself  in  the  most  ab- 
solute way.  It  has  constituted  the  powerful  mainspring, 
more  or  less  concealed,  of  the  whole  papal  machinery."('^) 

(")  All  this  would,  undoubtedly,  be  right  and  proper  to  the  author  of  the 
following  sentiments,  who  contributes  as  much  as  almost  any  other  man  to 
mold  Koman  Catholic  sentiment  in  the  United  States : 

"  The  Protestant  is  bound  to  be  liberal  to  Catholics,  but  Catholics  can  not 
be  liberal  toward  any  party  that  rejects  the  Church,  and  must  hold  them  to 
be  the  enemies  of  God,  not  on  his  own  private  judgment,  but  on  the  infallible 
authority  of  the  Church  of  Christ." — New  York  Tablet,  September  7th,  1872. 

(")  Butler,  pp.  209-211. 

(^*)  "Rome,  Christian  and  Papal,"  by  L.  D.  Sa*nctis,  D.D,,  p.  5. 


236  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

It  should  excite  no  surprise,  therefore,  in  the  mind  of  any 
man  who  does  not  believe  that  God  designed  mankind  for 
perpetual  bondage,  that  the  Italian  people  were  anxious  to 
get  rid  of  a  government  so  opposed  to  the  spirit  of  the  age 
and  the  progress  of  the  nineteenth  century,  and  that  they 
did  get  rid  of  it  as  soon  as  papal  infallibility  was  decreed 
and  the  French  troops  were  withdrawn.  It  had  not  about 
it  a  single  element  of  popularity — nothing  to  make  a  Ro- 
man citizen  feel  that  he  was  any  thing  but  a  serf,  and  noth- 
ing to  stimulate  him  to  a  proper  conception  of  his  own  char- 
acter or  that  of  his  country.  It  was  the  last  surviving  ves- 
tige of  the  Middle  Ages,  and  seems  to  have  been  providen- 
tially spared  only  that  the  people  of  Italy  might  be  ena- 
bled to  observe  the  contrast  between  it  and  the  advancing 
modern  nations,  until  they  should  be  fully  enabled  to  strike 
down  all  the  civil  appendages  of  the  papacy.  It  was  such 
a  union  of  Church  and  State,  and  so  complete  a  subordina- 
tion of  the  State  to  the  Church,  as  demonstrated  by  all  its 
workings  how  impossible  it  was  to  establish  any  form  of 
political  freedom  where  it  existed.  It  stood  among  the  na- 
tions like  the  fabled  upas-tree  in  the  Javanese  forests,  emit- 
ting a  poison  which  liberty  could  not  inhale  without  dying. 
And  thus,  while  we  are  able  to  comprehend  the  motives  of 
the  Italian  people  in  desiring  its  overthrow,  we  can  also  un- 
derstand why  the  Encyclical  and  Syllabus  were  issued,  and 
why  all  the  progressive  nations  were  arraigned  for  refusing 
to  recognize  all  this  wrong  and  injustice  as  rightfully  done 
in  the  name  of  religion. 

And  this  leads  us,  in  the.  regular  order  of  our  inquiries, 
into  an  examination  of  the  real  origin  of  the  temporal  pow- 
er of  the  pope,  that  thereby  we  may  be  enabled  to  decide 
whether  it  is  a  divine  or  human  power — whether  it  was,  as 
Pius  IX.  alleges,  conferred  on  Peter  by  Christ,  or  has  been 
the  creation  of  fraud,  intrigue,  and  usurpation.  History  on 
this  subject  is  much  confused ;  yet  the  truth  may  be  discov- 
ered, by  patient  investigation,  through  all  the  myths  and  fa- 
bles which  have  been  woven  into  it. 

There  is  nothing  in  which  ecclesiastical  and  secular  histo- 
rians better  agree  than  that,  during  the  times  of  primitive 
Christianity,  the  spiritual  and  temporal  jurisdictions  remain- 


THE  EARLY  COUNCILS  AND  THE  EMPERORS.         237 

ed  distinct — each  exercising  authority  only  over  those  mat- 
ters which  pertained  to  itself.  It  is  difficult  to  account  for  a 
denial  of  this,  except  upon  the  ground  of  ignorance  or  men- 
dacity. The  distinction  was  preserved  for  a  number  of  cent- 
uries, even  in  relation  to  jurisdiction  over  heretics,  which 
more  immediately  concerned  the  Church  than  any  thing  of 
a  mere  secular  nature.  The  most  disturbing  element  in  the 
early  Christian  Church  was  Arianism.  This  was  condemn- 
ed by  the  Council  of  Nice  in  325,  because  heresy  was  within 
the  spiritual  jurisdiction.  But  the  Council  did  not  under- 
take to  prohibit  the  circulation  of  Arian  books,  because  that 
belonged  to  the  temporal  jurisdiction,  and  was  left  to  Con- 
stantine,  the  emperor,  who  did  it  by  imperial  edict.  The 
Council  of  Ephesus,  in  431,  condemned  the  heresy  of  Nesto- 
rius,  but  left  the  circulation  of  his  books  to  be  prohibited  by 
the  Emperor  Theodosius.  The  Council  of  Chalcedon,  in  451, 
condemned  the  Eutychians  for  heresy,  but  the  Emperor 
Martian  prohibited  the  circulation  of  their  books.  The  sec- 
ond Council  of  Constantinople,  in  553,  declared  Eunomius 
to  be  a  heretic,  but  the  Emperor  Arcadius  suppressed  his 
books  by  an  imperial  law.  All  these  councils  are  recognized 
by  the  Roman  Church  as  ecumenical,  and  as  having  possess- 
ed the  highest  jurisdiction  and  authority  in  the  Church  —  a 
fact  never  authoritatively  impeached  until  the  decree  of  pa- 
pal infallibility  w^as  passed  by  the  late  Lateran  Council.  It 
will  not  do  for  a  papist  to  say  that  these  councils  did  not 
properly  understand  and  define  the  true  relations  between 
the  spiritual  and  the  temporal  power.  And  he  presumes 
greatly  upon  the  popular  ignorance  who  asserts  that  they 
were  changed  until  that  result  was  produced  by  papal  usur- 
pations. 

Many  books  have  been  written  to  prove  the  primacy  of 
Peter  in  both  honor  and  authority,  as  a  foundation  for  the 
additional  assumption  that  Christ,  in  establishing  his  Church, 
gave  it  an  external  hierarchical  organization  ;  that,  of  neces- 
sity, he  conferred  upon  this  organization  plenary  authority 
over  all  matters  of  faith  and  morals  ;  that  supremacy  is  in- 
volved in  this  authority ;  that,  as  the  necessary  consequence 
of  this  supremacy,  all  Christians  must  defer  to  and  obey  it; 
that  the  Church  was  established  and  organized  by  Peter  at 


238  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

Rome;  that  he  was  its  first  bishop;  and  that  all  the  subse- 
quent bishops  and  popes  of  Rome,  in  the  regular  and  un- 
broken line  of  succession,  have  enjoyed  the  same  supremacy 
and  held  the  same  authority  held  by  Peter.  All  the  argu- 
ments to  support  these  propositions  are  made  within  a  cir- 
cle, varying  only  according  to  the  learning  and  ingenuity 
of  those  who  make  them.  They  all  assume  the  same  postu- 
lates and  reach  the  same  conclusions — to  wit,  that  the  Ro- 
man is  the  only  true  Church ;  that  she  alone  possesses  the 
organization  instituted  by  Christ  upon  Peter,  and,  therefore, 
also  the  supremacy  and  authority  conferred  on  him ;  that 
she  alone,  through  her  infallible  pope,  has  the  power  to  de- 
cide and  define  the  faith  and  the  nature  and  extent  of  her 
own  authority  over  all  nations  and  peoples ;  and,  conse- 
quently, that  whatever  she  shall  decide  and  declare  to  be 
the  law  of  God,  in  the  domain  of  faith  and  morals,  must  be 
accepted  and  believed  as  such. 

These  propositions  have  theological  aspects,  not  neces- 
sary to  be  discussed  here ;  but  they  are  grouped  together 
because  they  constitute  the  basis  of  that  jurisdiction  over 
spiritual  and  secular  affairs  by  means  of  which  the  papacy 
has  exercised  its  wonderful  authority  over  the  world.  The 
thoughtful  investigator  can  not  be  expected,  in  the  present 
age,  to  acquiesce  in  the  justness  and  legitimacy  of  this  ju- 
risdiction, unless  he  shall  find  it  conferred  by  the  teach- 
ings and  example  of  Christ  and  the  apostles.  And  if,  on 
the  other  hand,  it  shall  appear  to  have  grown  alone  out  of 
leagues  and  compacts  and  concordats  between  popes  and 
kings,  and  the  usurpations  which  invariably  attend  them, 
then  he  will  be  justified  in  regarding  it  as  unwarrantable 
and  illegitimate.  And  if  it  arose  out  of  the  consent  of  the 
nations,  at  a  time  when  they  were  threatened  with  annihila- 
tion, as  some  assert,  then  the  nations,  now  existing  in  the 
enjoyment  of  stability  and  progress,  can  not  be  denied  the 
right  to  withdraw  their  assent  from  such  a  measure  of  tem- 
porary expediency,  if,  indeed,  they  are  under  any  obligation 
to  recognize  it  at  all,  and  more  especially  so  if  it  interferes 
with  their  stability  and  impedes  their  advancement.  The 
papacy  itself  has  often  found  authority  in  the  divine  law 
for  giving  its  assent,  once  withheld,  and  for  withdrawing  it 


MUTILATION  OF  BOOKS  AT  KOME.  239 

when  once  given,  in  matters  both  spiritual  and  temporal; 
and  if  the  nations  of  the  nineteenth  century,  not  desiring  to 
turn  back  to  the  mediaeval  times,  shall  find  in  its  example 
justification  for  denying  to  those  times  the  right  to  confer 
upon  it  authority  to  block  up  their  pathways  of  progress 
and  improvement,  it  ought  to  know  that  its  acquiescence 
would  be  far  more  consistent  with  primitive  Christianity 
than  its  present  persistent  and  passionate  resistance. 

We  must  accept  all  papal  testimony  upon  these  questions 
with  many  grains  of  allowance,  for  much  the  most  impor- 
tant part  of  it  has  come  from  the  manufactory  at  Rome,  and 
does  not  reach  the  dignity  of  proof.  A  distinguished  Ro- 
man Catholic  of  Venice,  and  priest  of  one  of  the  papal  or- 
ders, has  given  us  a  timely  and  necessary  caution  on  this 
subject.  The  "  most  learned  Father  Paul,"  referring  to  the 
extraordinary  influence  which  the  popes  were  enabled  to  ac- 
quire by  means  of  the  prohibition  of  books  and  the  univers- 
al practice  among  them  of  not  permitting  the  circulation 
and  reading  of  any  that  did  not  teach  obedience  on  the  part 
of  the  people  to  the  ecclesiastical  power,  says : 

"But  as  there  were  already  in  God's  Church  those  who 
made  use  of  religion  for  worldly  ends,  so  the  number  of 
them  is  now  full.  These,  under  a  spiritual  pretense,  but 
with  an  ambitious  end  and  desire  of  worldly  wealth,  would 
free  themselves  from  the  obedience  due  to  the  prince,  and 
take  away  the  love  and  reverence  due  by  the  people,  to 
draw  it  to  themselves.  To  bring  these  things  to  pass,  they 
have  newly  invented  a  doctrine,  which  talks  of  nothing 
but  ecclesiastical  greatness,  liberty,  immunity,  and  of  her  ju- 
risdiction. The  doctrine  was  unheard  of  until  about  the 
year  1300,  neither  is  there  any  book  found  concerning  it  be- 
fore that  time :  then  did  they  begin  to  write  of  it  scatter- 
ingly  in  some  books ;  but  there  were  not  above  two  books 
which  treated  of  nothing  else  but  this,  until  the  year  1400, 
and  three  until  the  year  1500.  After  this  time  the  number 
increased  a  little,  but  it  was  tolerable.  After  the  year  1560, 
this  doctrine  began  to  increase  in  such  manner  that  they 
gave  over  writing,  as  they  did  before,  of  the  mysteries  of 
the  Holy  Trinity,  of  the  creation  of  the  world,  of  the  Incar- 
nation of  Christ,  and  other  mysteries  of  the  belief;  and  there 


240  TPIE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

is  nothing  printed  in  Italy  but  books  in  diminution  of  secu- 
lar autliority  and  exaltation  of  the  ecclesiastical,  and  such 
books  are  not  printed  by  small  numbers,  but  by  thousands. 
Those  people  which  have  any  learning  can  read  nothiiig  else; 
the  confessors  likewise  know  none  other  doctrine,  nor,  to  be 
approved  of,  need  they  any  other  learning.  Whence  comes 
in  a  perverse  opinion  universally,  that  princes  and  magis- 
trates are  human  inventions,  yea,  and  tyrannical ;  that  they 
ought  only  by  compulsion  to  be  obeyed ;  that  the  disobey- 
ing of  laws  and  defrauding  the  public  revenues  do  not  bind 
one  unto  sin,  but  only  to  punishment ;  and  that  he  that  doth 
not  pay,  if  he  can  fly  from  it,  remains  not  guilty  before  the 
Divine  Majesty ;  and  contrariwise,  that  each  beck  of  ecclesi- 
astical persons,  without  any  other  thought,  ought  to  be  taken 
for  a  cUvi?ie  precept,  and  binds  the  co?iscience.  And  this 
doctrine,  perchance,  is  the  cause  of  all  inconveniences  which 
are  felt  in  this  age.  There  wants  not  in  Italy  pious  and 
learned  persons  which  hold  the  truth,  but  they  are  not  suf- 
fered to  write,  nor  to  print.  Something  comes  written  from 
another  place,  but  presently  it  is  prohibited.  And  little 
thought  is  taken  of  heretical  books,  especially  those  that 
treat  of  the  Articles  of  Faith ;  but  if  any  one  comes  that 
defends  the  prince  his  temporal  authority,  and  saith  that  ec- 
clesiastical persons  are  also  subject  to  public  functions,  and 
punishable  if  they  violate  the  iniblic  tranquillity,  these  are 
condemned  books,  and  persecuted  more  than  others.  They 
have  gelded  the  books  of  ancient  authors  by  new  printing 
of  them,  and  taken  out  all  which  might  serve  for  temporal 
authority.''^') 

This  author  wrote  shortly  after  the  death  of  Ignatius  Loy- 
ola, the  founder  of  the  Jesuits,  and  when,  as  appears  from  his 
statement,  the  papacy  had  been  brought  completely  under 
the  influence  of  the  doctrines  of  that  order.  He  is  better 
known  as  Sarpi,  and  his  "History  of  the  Council  of  Trent" 
has  been  long  accepted  by  the  learned  as  a  work  of  stand- 
ard authority.     He  lived  for  some  years  at  Rome,  where  he 


(")  "History  of  the  Inquisition,"  by  the  Rev.  Father  Paul  Servita  (Sar- 
pi): London  edition,  1676 ;  bound  with  his  "History  of  the  Council  of 
Trent,"  pp.  874,  875. 


FALSIFICATION  OF  HISTORY.  241 

enjoyed  the  confidence  of  the  pope;  as  he  did  also  that 
of  Cardinal  Bellarmine,  the  great  Roman  Catholic  annalist. 
His  exidence  upon  the  subjects  of  which  he  treats  is  of  such 
importance  as  to  justify  the  foregoing  long  extract.  And 
he  is  equally  important  authority  upon  another  point.  He 
also  exposes  the  fraudulent  methods  employed  at  Rome  to 
falsify  history,  as  one  of  the  means  of  extending  and  per- 
petuating the  supremacy  of  the  papacy  over  the  legitimate 
temporal  authority  of  the  nations.  He  informs  us  that  Clem- 
ent VHL,  who  was  pope  from  1592  to  1605,  prescribed  a 
rule  making  all  writers  of  Roman  Catholic  books  so  subserv- 
ient to  the  papacy  that  their  books  ''might  be  corrected 
and  amended,  not  only  hy  talcing  away  lohat  is  not  conform- 
able to  the  doctrine  of  Eome,  hut  also  loith  adding  to  it!''' 
This,  he  says,  was  "  put  in  practice,"  and,  by  means  of  it, 
books  were  fraudulently  mutilated  to  make  them  support 
ecclesiastical  usurpation,  when  their  authors  designed  no 
such  meaning.  As  late  as  the  seventeenth  century,  the  "  In- 
dex Expurgatorius,"  printed,  by  authority  of  the  pope,  at 
Rome,  contained  notes  of  the  places  where  many  "authors 
ought  to  be  canceled;"  and  this  dishonest  practice  of  alter- 
ing the  language  and  meaning  of  books  was  carried  so  far, 
says  Father  Paul,  that  "  at  this  present,  in  reading  of  a  book, 
a  man  can  no  more  find  what  the  author's  meaning  was,  but 
only  lohat  is  the  Court  of  JioJJie^s,  who  hath  altered  every 
thing  :'{'') 

There  are  very  few  exceptions  in  history  to  the  rule,  that 
those  who  possess  themselves,  wrongfully  and  unjustly,  of 
the  power  to  govern  others,  are  not  apt  to  halt  long  at  the 
means  of  preserving  it.  Machiavelli  has  been  severely  cen- 
sured for  having  taught  the  doctrine  that  "the  end  justifies 
the  means  ;"  but  it  should  be  remembered,  in  seeking  for  tlie 
proper  interpretation  of  his  motives,  that  his  "  Prince  "  was 
written,  not  so  much  for  the  purpose  of  originating  new  prin- 
ciples of  action,  as  to  exhibit  the  nature  and  operation  of 
those  that  almost  universally  prevailed  in  his  time ;  and  that 
when  he  came  to  illustrate  the  eflTect  of  the  doctrine  that  "  a 
prudent  prince  can  not  and  ought  not  to  keep  his  word,  ex- 

(")  "Plistoiy  of  the  Inquisition,"  by  Rev.  Father  Paul  Servita,  p.  875. 

16 


242  THE  TAVACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

cept  wlieii  he  can  do  it  without  injury  to  himself,"  but  should 
play  "the  part  of  the  fox,"  the  example  which  served  his 
purpose  best  was  that  furnished  by  the  pontificate  of  Alex- 
ander VI.,  Avhose  whole  life  he  characterized  as  "  a  game  of 
deception,"  and  of  whom  he  also  said,  "  Oaths  and  protesta- 
tions cost  him  nothing;  never  did  a  prince  so  often  break 
Ins  word  or  pay  less  regard  to  his  engagements. "('^)  He 
liad  before  his  mind  the  Jesuit  influence  upon  the  papacy 
and  the  princes  of  Europe,  whose  combined  authority  was 
directed  to  the  accumulation  of  power  in  their  own  hands, 
no  matter  at  what  sacrifice  by  the  people.  It  was  this  in- 
fluence which  molded  the  ethics  of  the  papacy;  and  whetlier 
the  odious  principles  of  the  Jesuits  were  deduced  from  the 
examples  of  former  popes,  or  fixed  first  in  the  minds  of  those 
of  the  sixteenth  century  by  Loyola  and  his  disciples,  is  of  no 
consequence,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  temporal  power  of 
the  pope  is  shown  by  all  impartial  history  to  have  grown 
out  of  the  most  stupendous  system  of  fraud  and  usurpation 
ever  known  to  the  world.  The  steps  which  led  to  it  were 
gradual  and  progressive.  So  far  from  its  having  a  divine 
foundation,  arising  out  of  any  authority  conferred  by  Christ 
upon  Peter,  it  had  its  inception  in  the  time  of  Constantine,  to 
whom,  more  tlian  to  all  others,  the  papacy  is  indebted  for  the 
origin  of  its  most  important  immunities  and  privileges.  lie 
was  the  first  to  lay  a  foundation  for  the  union  of  Church  and 
State,  to  mingle  religion  and  politics  together;  and  he  did 
this  not  only  to  increase  his  own  power,  but  the  influence  of 
the  Roman  priesthood,  in  return  for  the  assistance  they  ren- 
dered him  when  he  overthrew  Maxentius,  tlie  reigning  Em- 
peror of  Rome.  At  the  proper  time,  we  shall  see  that  the 
combination  to  effect  these  ends  was  political,  not  religious, 
and  that  there  was  no  thought  of  its  serving  any  other  pur- 
pose until  the  calling  of  the  Council  of  Nice,  by  Constantine 
liimself,  without  any  agency  whatever  on  the  part  of  Pope 
Sylvester,  for  the  ostensible  object  of  suppressing  the  heresy  of 
Arius,  but  for  the  real  purpose  of  producing  a  closer  and  more 
intimate  union  between  the  imperial  and  ecclesiastical  powers. 


C^)   Macliiavelli's    "History   of   Florence,"    and   other    Works     ("The 
Prince"),  Bohn's  ed.,  pp.  459,  460. 


THE  POPE  o  TEMPORAL  POWER.  24S 

Some  of  the  papal  writers  are  disposed  to  go  behind  the 
concessions  made  to  the  Church  of  Kome  by  Constantine, 
and  to  search  for  the  temporal  power  in  the  ownership  of 
ecclesiastical  property  before  that  time.  A  book  has  lately 
been  written  in  Germany — translated  and  published  in  the 
United  States  —  enforcing  this  view  by  a  variety  of  argu- 
ments.('^)  It  is  here  called  the  "Patrimony  of  Peter,"  the 
"  supreme  jurisdiction  of  the  see  of  Rome ;"  and  it  is  said 
that  Ignatius  referred  to  it  as  "  a  presidency  of  charity," 
when,  as  this  author  alleges,  he  assigned  to  the  Roman 
Church  supremacy  over  all  the  other  churches.  This  argu- 
ment, if  it  proves  any  thing,  proves  too  much  for  the  advo- 
cates of  the  temporal  power;  for,  at  the  time  Ignatius  wrote, 
att  the  churches  in  Asia  and  Africa  were  the  owners  of  ec- 
clesiastical property,  equally  with  that  at  Rome ;  and  some 
of  the  Asiatic  churches,  as  those  at  Jerusalem,  Antioch,  etc., 
had  been  such  owners  before  there  was  any  thing  like  an 
organized  Christian  Church  known  or  heard  of  at  Rome. 
Hence,  if  this  ownership  conferred  any  temporal  power  high- 
er than  the  mere  right  to  use  and  enjoy  church  property, 
the  other  churches  possessed  it  in  the  same  degree  as  the 
Roman,  and  no  superiority  could  arise  out  of  that  cause. 
But  it  really  proves  nothing;  for  the  plain  reason  that  in 
no  age  of  the  world  have  civilized  nations  ever  recognized 
any  temporal  power,  in  the  sense  of  that  claimed  for  the 
popes,  as  derived  from  the  mere  individual  or  corporate  right 
to  hold  and  enjoy  property.  The  right  to  hold  real  property 
is  attached,  primarily,  to  the  sovereignty,  and  is  enjoyed  by 
individuals  or  corporations  by  grant  from  it,  or  when  it  is 
taken  by  force  strong  enough  to  make  resistance  successful. 
When  conferred  by  grant  or  any  form  of  concession,  there  is 
no  abatement  of  the  sovereign  power,  which,  for  all  the  pur- 
poses of  government  over  both  the  property  and  its  possess- 
or, remains  as  before. 

Nor  is  it  true  that  Ignatius  recognized  any  such  suprema- 
cy in  the  Roman  Church,  as  is  asserted,  with  such  apparent 
confidence,  by  this  author.     Fortunately,  the  recent  publica- 

('")  "Rome  and  the  Popes/' translated  from  the  German  of  Dr.  Karl 
Brandes,  by  Rev.  W.  I.  Wiseman,  S.  T.  L.,  chap,  xvi.,  p.  84. 


244  THE  rAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWKK. 

lion  of  tlie  writincifs  of  the  "  Ante-Xiceiic  l-itlicrs"  will  en- 
able any  diligent  inquirer  to  investigate  tliese  matters  for 
liimself;  and  thus  to  avoid  being  misled  by  second-hand  au- 
thorities, which,  as  Sarpi  tells  us,  are  often  culled  and  clipped 
at  Rome,  to  make  them  express,  not  what  the  authors  meant, 
but  what  the  papacy  desires.  Ignatius  addressed  his  "Epis- 
tle to  the  Romans"  to  the  Church  which  ^^ presides  hi  the 
place  of  the  regio7i  of  the  Jiomans,''\^°)  thus  showing  that, 
whatever  w^as  the  nature  of  the  presidency  possessed  by  the 
bishops  of  Rome  at  that  time,  it  was  limited  to  the  region 
round  about  Rome,  and  did  not  extend  into  other  regions. 
And  in  the  same  sense  he  saluted  all  the  other  churches  to 
which  his  epistles  were  addressed — those  at  Ephesus,  Mag- 
nesia, Tralles,  Philadelphia,  and  Smyrna.  He  wrote  his  Epis- 
tle to  the  Romans  while  on  his  way  to  Rome  from  Antioch, 
where  he  was  sent  by  Trajan  to  be  thrown  to  the  wild  beasts. 
His  chief  object  was  to  notify  them  that  he  was  rejoiced  at 
the  dispensation  which  w^as  about  to  enable  him  "to  fight 
with  beasts  at  Rome ;"  that  is,  to  suffer  martyrdom  for  the 
cause  of  Christ.  He  said  nothing  from  which  the  presiden- 
cy of  Peter  can,  by  possibility,  be  inferred — not  even  by  the 
most  ingenious  torture  of  his  language.  When  he  spoke  of 
the  authority  to  issue  commands  to  the  Roman  Christians, 
he  referred  to  Peter  and  Paul  unitedly,  and  not  to  Peter 
alone ;  and  then  only  for  the  purpose  of  contrasting  himself 
with  them,  tliey  being  apostles  and  he  a  follower,  f^)  When, 
elsewhere,  he  spoke  of  the  obligation  of  obedience,  he  ad- 
monished each  particular  church  addressed  by  him  to  show 
it  to  its  own  bishop.  To  the  Ephesians  he  said,  "  Ye  should 
run  together  in  accordance  with  the  will  of  the  bishop  who 
hy  GocVs  appointment  rules  over  you^i^^)  After  counseling 
the  Magnesians  to  revere  their  "most  admirable  bishop,"  he 
said  to  them,  "  Be  ye  subject  to  the  bishop,  and  to  one  an- 
other, as  Christ  to  the  Father,  that  there  may  be  a  unity  ac- 
cording to  God  among  you."{")     To  the  Trallians  he  said, 

O  "The  Apostolic  Fathers,"  published  by  T.  &  T.  Clark,  Edinburgh,  p. 
280.  See  also  "The  Apocryphal  New  Testament,"  published  by  Dewitt  & 
Davenport,  New  York. 

(")  "  The  Apostolic  Fathers,"  p.  212.  C")  Ibid.,  p.  149. 

O  Ibid.,  p.  186. 


THE  AUTHORITY  OF  IGNATIUS.  245 

"Be  ye  subject  to  the  bishop  as  to  the  Lord."('')     He  com- 
mended to  the  Philadelphians  their  bishop,  with  whom  he 
desired  them  to  maintain  union ;  telling  them, "  where  the 
shepherd  is,  there  do  ye  as  sheep  follow  ;"(")  and,  further  ex- 
horting them  to  unity,  said,  "  Be  ye  followers  of  Paul,  and 
the  rest  of  the  apostles,  even  as  they  also  were  of  Christ ;"('") 
making  no  mention  whatever  of  Peter,  but  directly  exclud- 
ing, almost  by  express  words,  all  idea  of  his  primacy  or  su- 
periority.    To  the  Smyrneans  he  said,  "  See  that  ye  all  fol- 
low the  bishop,"  and  "  Let  no  man  do  any  thing  connected 
with  the  church  without  the  bishop,"  and  wherever  he  was 
there  should  they  be,  because  "  wherever  Jesus  Christ  is,  there 
is  the   Catholic   Church  f' i^')  that  is,  the  universal  body  of 
Christians,  and  not  merely  the  Church  of  Rome,  of  whose 
power  to  govern  the  other  churches  he  seems  never  to  have 
had  a  thought.     And,  in  further  and  still  more  convincing 
proof  that  he  did  not  recognize  the  primacy  of  Peter,  or  of 
the  Roman  Church,  he  begged  the  Romans,  in  his  Epistle  to 
them,  to  remember  the  Church  in  Syria  in  their  prayers,  since; 
instead  of  him,  it  then  had  no  bishop,  but  only  the  Lord  "  for 
its  shepherd ;"('')  which  could  not  have  been  the  case  if  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  was,  as  is  now  pretended,  the  shepherd  of 
the  whole  'flock— the  universal  shepherd.     And  in  his  letter 
to  Polycarp,  Bishop  of  Smyrna,  he  begged  him,  and  not  the 
Bishop  of  Rome,  to  assemble  a  council,  to  elect  a  bishop  for 
the  Church  at  Antioch,  in  his  place,  and  "  to  bestow  on  him 
the  honor  of  going  into  Syria ;"('')  which  he,  undoubtedly, 
would  not  have  done  if  Rome  had  been  the  seat  of  episco- 
pal primacy,  and  if  the  bishops  there  had  possessed  what  is 
now  so  dogmatically  and  imperiously  claimed  for  them, "  the 
plenitude  of  power  to  feed,  rule,  and  gomryi  the  Universal 
Church:'i^'')     And  thus  we  find  the  precise  fact  to  be,  that 
Ignatius  is  authority  against,  rather  than  for,  the  existence 
of  what  is  now  called  "  the  patrimony  of  Peter;"  at  least,  up 
to  the  year  107,  which  is  supposed  to  have  been  the  year 
of  his  martyrdom. 

(")  "  The  Apostolic  Fathers,"  p.  190.  C'')  Ibid.,  p.  223. 

'       Q')  Ibid.,  pp.  233,  234.  D  Ibid,  pp.  248,  249. 

D  Ibid.,  p.  218.  O  Ibid,  pp.  264,  265. 

(3°)  "The  Vatican  Council,"  by  Manning,  p.  61. 


246  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

This  same  German  author,  in  further  support  of  his  views, 
refers  to  the  action  of  two  of  the  pagan  emperors  to  prove 
that  the  patrimony  of  Peter,  or  temporal  power  of  the  pope, 
was  recognized  by  them  as  existing  in  the  third  century. 
He  says,  "Alexander  Severus  decided  a  lawsuit  respecting 
a  piece  of  property  in  favor  of  the  Roman  Church,"  treating 
it  as  a  "corporate  body  ;"(^')  and  that  "the  Emperor  Aure- 
lian,  though  an  enemy  and  persecutor  of  the  Church,  recog- 
nized the  supremacy  of  the  pope  over  all  the  Christians  of 
the  empire."f '')  If  such  assertions  as  these  were  not  grave- 
ly set  forth  as  argument  in  a  standard  work  of  the  Church, 
and  designed,  by  its  republication,  to  influence  public  opin- 
ion in  the  United  States,  they  would  scarcely  be  worthy  of 
notice.  As  it  is,  they  only  serve  to  show  how  utterly  inde- 
fensible is  the  claim  of  temporal  power  at  the  time  refer- 
red to. 

Althougli  Alexander  Severus  was  not,  yet  his  mother  was 
a  Christian,  as  we  learn  from  Origen,  and  his  conduct  to- 
ward the  Christians  may,  in  some,  measure,  be  attributed  to 
her  influence.  As.  an  exhibition  of  his  liberality — probably 
induced  by  her  —  he  issued  an  edict  of  toleration,  prohibit- 
ing any  violence  against  his  subjects  on  account  of  their  relig- 
ion, f^)  That  the  Church  held  property  in  Rome  during  his 
reign,  as  a  recognized  corporation,  must  be  true;  for  Roman 
corporations  were  provided  for  and  protected  by  Kuma 
Pompilius,  as  early  as  about  the  fortieth  year  of  Rome.(^*) 
When  the  laws  of  the  Decemvirs — the  "  twelve  tables,"  were 
engraved  on  brass  and  fixed  up  in  public  view,  full  protec- 
tion was  given  to  all  these  corporations  ;(^^)  including,  of 
course,  such  as  the  Church  afterward  became.  Therefore, 
the  decision  of  so  liberal  a  prince  as  Alexander  Severus, 
merely  in  support  of  the  right  of  the  Church  to  hold  proper- 
ty as  a  corporation,  proves  only  two  things:  first,  that  the 
Christians  were  not  persecuted  during  his  reign  ;  and,  second, 
that  he  administered  the  laws  with  integrity  and  impartial- 
ity. He  would,  in  like  manner,  have  maintained  the  same 
right  in  any  other  corporation,  as  he  did,  in  fact,  in  all  the 

C)  Brandes,  p.  85.  (^)  Ibid.,  p.  8G. 

(")  "History  of  the  Popes,"  by  Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  35. 

C*)  Plutarcli,  vol.  i.,  p.  178.  C)  Livy,  bk.  iii.,  eh.  Ivii. 


EXAMPLE  OF  THE  EMPEROR  AURELIAN.     247 

pagan  corporations.  Hence  his  decision  amounts  to  noth- 
ing as  an  argument  in  favor  of  the  temporal  power  of  the 
popes.  It  really  proves  the  reverse,  if  any  thing ;  because  it 
serves  to  show  that  the  Roman  Church,  instead  of  deciding 
upon  its  own  right  to  property  in  Rome  by  its  own  hie- 
rarchical authority  —  as  it  is  now  pretended  it  has  always 
done— was  compelled,  like  all  the  other  corporations  of  Rome, 
to  submit  it  to  the  emperor,  and  to  abide  his  decision,  be- 
cause he  possessed  the  superior  temporal  jurisdiction  of  tlie 
State.  The  Bishop  of  Rome  was  then  a  subject — not  in  any 
sense  a  sovereign. 

Nor  does  the  papal  theory  derive  any  more  or  better  sup- 
port from  what  was  done  by  tlie  Emperor  Aurelian.  He 
was,  for  a  while,  disposed  to  favor  the  Christians,  but  at  last, 
according  to  Lactantius,  issued  "bloody  edicts"  against 
them.C")  The  case  of  Paul  of  Samosata  came  before  him 
to  be  judged  —  probably  before  he  became  a  persecutor. 
The  fact  that  he  linally  decided  such  a  case — involving  her- 
esy in  one  of  its  aspects,  which  was  an  offense  against  the 
laws  of  the  Church,  and  not  against  those  of  the  empire — is 
perfectly  conclusive  against  the  claim  of  papal  supremacy  at 
Rome  at  that  time  ;  that  is,  up  to  the  pontificate  of  Felix  I., 
between  the  years  270  and  275,  when  the  case  was  decided. 
It  proves,  beyond  any  reasonable  ground  for  controversy, 
that — as  during  the  previous  reign  of  Alexander  Severus — 
the  Roman  Church  and  its  bishop  were  entirely  subordinate 
to  the'  emperor  and  the  laws  of  the  empire.  And  that  this 
subordination  extended  even  to  ecclesiastical  matters,  the 
anse  adjudged  by  Aurelian  abundantly  shows,  as  the  his- 
tory of  the  same  case  also  shows,  that  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Roman  bishop  was  limited,  as  it  was  in  the  time  pf  Ignatius, 
to  "  the  place  of  the  region  of  the  Romans." 

Paul  of  Samosata  was  Bishop  of  Antioch,  in  Syria,  and 
denied  the  divinity  of  Christ.  For  this  a  council  was  as- 
sembled at  Antioch  to  try  him,  vnthout  the  agency  of  the 
Church  or  Bishop  of  Home  —  which  would  scarcely  have 
been  the   case   if  the   supremacy  now   asserted   had  then 


(3«)  "  History  of  the  Catholic  Church,"  by  Noethen,  p.  132  ;  "Eccl.  Hist.,' 
by  Eusebius,  bk.  vii,,  ch.  xxx. 


248  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

existed.  According  to  Eusebius,  this  council  was  composed 
of  bishops  from  Cesarea,  Pontus,  Tarsus,  Iconium,  and  Jeru- 
salem, and  many  presbyters  and  deac6ns(") — all  from  the 
Asiatic  churches,  and  none  from  Rome  —  with  Firmilian, 
Jiishop  of  Cesarea,  as  its  president. ('')  Paul  was  convicted 
of  heresy,  but  not  excommunicated,  in  consequence  of  a 
promise  that  he  would  retract  his  error.  Having  failed, 
however,  to  do  this,  a  second  council  was  assembled  at  the 
same  place  in  the  year  270,  which  deposed  Paul,  and  elected 
another  bishop  to  succeed  him,  and  who  took  possession  of 
the  see  of  Antioch.  All  these  proceedings  were  conducted, 
from  first  to  last,  by  the  Asiatic  churches,  and  the  Roman 
Church  had  no  connection  whatever  with  them.  A  bishop 
was  tried  for  heresy,  convicted,  excommunicated,  and  re- 
moved from  office,  and  another  elected  to  fill  his  place,  by 
these  early  fathers,  and  yet  Rome  was  not  consulted !  But 
Paul  did  not  submit  without  some  show  of  resistance.  As 
he  was  "  unwilling  to  leave  the  building  of  the  church  " — 
that  is,  claimed  the  right  to  occupy  the  house  and  prom- 
ises— ''an  appeal  was  taken  to  the  Emperor  Aurelian,"  says 
Eusebius.C')  And  why  to  the  Emperor,  and  not  to  the 
Church  or  Bishop  of  Rome?  The  answer  is  simple  and  con- 
clusive :  because  neither  the  Church  as  a  corporation,  nor 
the  pope  as  a  bishop,  had  any  jurisdiction  over  temporal 
affairs,  even  to  the  extent  of  deciding  upon  the  right  of  an 
heretical  bishop  to  occupy  church  property;  nor  any  juris- 
diction to  review  or  decide  upon  the  proceedings  "of  the 
bishops  of  Asia  !  Both  the  Church  of  Rome  and  its  bishop, 
as  well  as  the  other  churches  and  bishops  throughout  tli«B 
empire,  were  subject  to  the  civil  laws  of  tlie  empire.  And 
because  of.  this  subordination,  and  because  both  Antioch 
and  Rome  were  w^ithin  the  empire,  all  the  parties  con- 
cerned were  compelled  to  abide  by  the  judgment  of  the 
emperor.  "And  he  decided,"  says  Eusebius,  "  most  equita- 
bly on  the  business,  ordering  the  building  to  be  given  up 
to  those  to  whom  the  bishops  of  Italy  and  Rome  should 
write."(*°)     Cormenin  records  his  decision  in  somewhat  dif- 

(")  "Eccl.  Hist,"  by  Eusebius,  bk.  vii.,  ch.  xxviii. 

D  "Eccl.  Hist.,"  by  Du  Pin,  vol.  i.,  p.  172. 

CO  Eusebius,  bk.  vii.,  ch.  xxx.  0°)  Ihid, 


EXAMPLE  OF  ALEXANDER  SEVERUS.  249 

fereiit  language,  thus:  "The  prince  decided  that  the  pos- 
session of  the  episcopal  palace  pertained  to  those  who  en- 
tertained relations  with  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  the  other 
prelates  of  Italy,  and  that  Pope  Felix,  having  refused  to 
hold  communion  with  Paul  of  Saraosata,  he  should  conse- 
quently be  driven  from  his  see."(^')  These  two  statements, 
however,  are  substantially  the  same — that  is,  that  the  em- 
peror decided  in  favor  of  those  Christians  at  Antioch  who 
were  in  fellowship,  not  merely  with  the  Bishop  of  Rome, 
but  with  the  "other  prelates  of  Italy,"  who  unitedly  rep- 
resented the  Italian  churches,  including  that  of  Rome  with 
the  others.  Nothing  could  have  been  more  natural ;  for, 
although  both  Rome  and  Antioch  were  in  the  empire, 
Aurelian,  a  pagan  prince,  could,  of  course,  have  no  other 
ideas  of  Christianity  than  such  as  he  derived  from  direct 
and  immediate  intercourse  with  his  Roman  and  Italian  sub- 
jects. Therefore,  upon  the  question  whether  or  not  Paul 
forfeited  his  rights  as  a  bishop  in  Asia  by  a  violation  of 
Christian  faith,  he  referred  to  them  because  they  were  in 
Rome  and  its  vicinity,  and  decided  according  to  their 
definition  of  orthodoxy — they  occupying  merely  a  second- 
ary or  advisory  position.  But  to  say  of  this,  as  this  author 
does,  that  it  was  a  recognition  by  Aurelian  of  "the  suprem- 
acy of  the  pope  over  all  the  Christians  of  the  empire,"  is 
an  assumption  wholly  unwarranted  by  the  facts.  The  case 
of  Paul  of  Samosata  proves  the  very  reverse.  And  the 
most  that  can  be  fairly  said,  if  not  all  that  can  be  said,  in 
reference  to  the  Church  at  Rome,  up  to  the  time  of  Aurelian, 
is,  that  it  was  permitted  by  law  to  hold  property,  as  also 
were  all  other  corporations  and  churches  throughout  the 
empire.  Whatsoever  temporal  power  was  necessary  to  en- 
able it  to  hold  and  enjoy  this  property,  it  possessed  —  no 
more,  no  less.  The  Bishop  of  Rome,  as-  its  ecclesiastical 
head,  did  not  possess  one  single  element  of  sovereignty. 

This  author,  however,  after  attempting  to  prove  that  the 
temporal  power  existed  in  the  times  of  Alexander  Severus 
and  Aurelian,  seems  himself  persuaded  that  the  right  was  a 
mere  shadowy  one ;  for  immediately  after  he  asserts  that  it 

(*')  Cormenirij  vol.  i.,  p.  4G. 


250  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

was  "formally  recognized"  by  "  an  edict  of  Constantine."(") 
Constantine  did  not  enter  Rome  till  the  year  312,durino'  the 
pontificate  of  Melchiades,  which  was  about  a  quarter  of  a 
century  after  the  death  of  Aurelian,  and  about  three-quar- 
ters of  a  century  after  that  of  Alexander  Severus.  If,  there- 
fore, the  popes  possessed  temporal  power  in  the  time  of  ei- 
ther of  these  last-named  emperors,  it  must  have  been  only 
partial  and  limited,  or  no  necessity  for  a  formal  recognition 
of  it  by  an  imperial  edict  would  Iiave  existed.  But  passing 
by  any  attempt  to  convict  him  of  inconsistency  by  a  critical 
review  of  his  language",  let  us  see  whether  this  pretended 
grant  of  Constantine  will  stand  the  test  of  investigation, 
and  whetlier  there  is  any  sufficient  foundation  for  it  to  rest 
upon. 

That  Constantine  recognized  tlie  Church  at  Rome  as  an 
existing  ecclesiastical  corporation,  as  some  of  his  predeces- 
sors had  done,  is  unquestionably  true.  And  it  is  also  true 
that  he  went  farther  than  any  of  them  in  strengthening  and 
protecting  it.  He  is  called  the  "  Christian  Emperor,''  by 
way  of  distinction;  but  when  we  shall  come,  at  another 
place,  to  look  into  the  history  of  liis  connection  with  the 
Roman  clergy,  we  shall  find  that  his  only  claim  to  this  title 
consists  in  the  ftict  that  he  was  the  friend  and  patron  of  the 
ecclesiastical  organization  which  gave  him  its  support  when 
he  marched  his  army  from  Britain  and  Gaul  into  Italy  to 
supplant  the  reigning  emperor  and  seize  upon  the  empire. 
The  pretext  that,  on  his  way  to  Rome,  as  a  pagan  prince,  he 
saw  a  flaming  cross  in  the  heavens,  bearing  the  inscription, 
"  U7ider  this  sign  thou  shalt  conquer^'  answered  its  end  in  a 
superstitious  age,  but  is  scarcely  entitled  to  the  place  it  has 
received  in  history.  The  fact  is,  he  cared  very  little  for 
Christianity  beyond  the  use  to  which  he  put  its  professors, 
which  was  to  build  up  and  secure  his  own  power.  Al- 
though he  convened  the  first  Council  of  N'ice,  dictated  the 
most  material  part  of  its  creed,  and  made  it  tlie  measure  of 
orthodoxy  by  his  imperial  decree,  yet  he  deferred  his  own 
baptism  and  union  with  the  Church  until  just  before  his 
death,  in  337,  when  he  received  baptism  at  the  hands  of  an 


C")  Brandes,  p.  8G. 


EXAMPLE  OF  CONSTANTINE.  051 

Arian  and  heretical  bishop.  He  was,  therefore,  never  a  Ro- 
man Catholic  at  all,  but,  according  to  the  present  teachings 
of  that  Church,  was  always  a  heretic,  and  not  a  Christian, 
unless  a  man  can  possess  both  characters  at  the  same  time! 
His  motives  were  in  tlie  main^  worldly;  and,  hence,  the  in- 
ference is  unavoidable  that  what  he  did  for  the  Church  at 
Rome  was  done  chieHy  to  advance  his  own  ambition.  He 
had  the  sympathy  of  the  Roman  clergy,  who  were  quite 
willing  to  assist  him  in  expelling  Maxentius,  not  only  be- 
cause the  latter  was  a  cruel  and  licentious  prince,  but  in  re- 
turn for  the  privileges  he  conferred  upon  them.  And  as 
they  were  most  efficient  and  valuable  aids  of  each  other, 
these  privileges  were  both  important  and  extensive.  But  it 
can  in  no  sense  be  properlj^  said  that  they  were  to  the  ex- 
tent of  conferring  upon  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  as  the  head  of 
the  Church,  any  share  of  the  temporal  power,  which,  as  all 
reliable  history  shows,  he  was  careful  to  retain  in  his  own 
hands,  both  at  Rome  and  elsewhere  throughout  the  empire. 
By  a  royal  decree,  he  commanded  all  his  subjects  to  honor 
the  Christian  religion ;  he  revoked  all  acts  of  persecution 
against  the  Christians  that  had  been  proclaimed  by  his  pred- 
ecessors; lie  released  Christians  who  had  been  deprived  of 
their  liberty;  he  placed  them  in  important  posts  of  govern- 
ment at  Rome;  he  commanded  that  part  of  the  funds  col- 
lected from  tributary  countries  should  be  paid  over  to  the 
clergy;  he  built  and  ornamented  churches;  and  he  permit- 
ted litigants  to  appeal  to  the  bishops,  instead  of  the  secular 
courts,  if  they  preferred  it.(''^)  Eusebius  has  preserved  sev- 
eral of  his  edicts  in  reference  to  the  Church.  ("*)  Not  one  of 
them,  however,  confers  any  temporal  power,  or  recognizes 
any  previously  existing.  One  of  them  distinctly  ignores  all 
such  power  in  the  Bishop  of  Rome.  The  first  commands 
the  restoration  of  certain  church  property ;  the  second  is 
of  like  character ;  the  third  convenes  a  council  of  bishops 
at  Rome,  to  preserve  the  unity  and  peace  of  the  Church; 
and  the  fourth  convenes  another  council  for  the  same  pur- 


(")  "  Eccl.  Hist.,"  by  Sozomen,  bk.  i.,  ch.  viii.,  ix.;  "  Eccl.  Hist.."  by  Soc- 
rates, bk.  i.,  ch.  iii. 

(**)  "Eccl.  Hist.,"  by  Eusebius,  bk.  x.,  ch.  v. 


252  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

pose.  Ill  these  two  last  he  provide!  by  imperial  edict  for 
matters  exclusively  belonging  to  the  Church,  when,  if  the 
temporal  power  had  belonged  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  they 
would  have  been  within  his  "sole  jurisdiction.  Why  should 
he  thus  act  independently  of  ecclesiastical  authority  upon 
such  a  subject?  Undoubtedly  it  must  have  been  only  on 
the  ground  of  his  own  imperial  supremacy  in  spiritual  as 
well  as  temporal  affairs.  He  was  willing  to  confer  honor 
upon  the  Church  and  emoluments  upon  the  clergy,  but  de- 
termined that  both  the  Church  and  the  clergy  should  be 
lield  in  subordination  to  the  State.  Otherwise,  what  would 
he,  as  emperor,  have  to  do  with  church  unity  ?  He  was  not 
a  member  of  the  Church,  according  to  the  orthodox  stand- 
ard of  the  Roman  Church,  not  even  a  Christian  !  Manifest- 
ly, he  must  have  felt  his  superiority  over  all  the  Roman 
hierarchy,  even  in  the  affairs  of  the  Church,  when,  in  one 
of  his  edicts,  he  used  such  language  as  this  in  reference  to 
them : 

"Hence  it  has  happened  that  those  very  persons  who 
ought  to  exhibit  a  brotheily  and  peaceful  unanimity,  rather 
disgracefully  and  detestably  are  at  variance  with  one  an- 
other, and  thus  give  this  occasion  of  derision  to  those  who 
are  without,  and  whose  minds  are  averse  to  our  most  holy 
religion.  Hence  it  has  appeared  necessary  to  me  to  provide 
that  this  matter,  which  ought  to  .have  ceased  after  the  de- 
cision was  issued  by  their  own  voluntary  agreement,  should 
be  fully  terminated  by  the  intervention  of  many."(*') 

The  expression  "  our  most  holy  religion  "  was  used  here 
not  in  such  a  sense  as  signified  his  own  personal  faith,  but  to 
indicate,  what  all  the  facts  prove,  that  as  the  imperial  head 
of  the  State  he  considered  himself  also  the  imperial  head  of 
the  Church.  And  tliat  this  was  his  idea — if  there  were  oth- 
erwise any  doubt  about  it — is  shown  by  another  edict  pre- 
served by  Eusebius,  wherein  he  expressly  separates  the  cler- 
gy from  all  temporal  affairs,  by  exempting  them  from  all 
farther  secular  service.     And  this  is  the  reason  he  assigns : 


(")  Eusebius,  bk.  x.,ch.  v.  This  extract  is  taken  from  an  "epistle  in 
which  the  emperor  commanded  another  council  to  be  held,  for  the  purpose 
of  removing  all  the  dissension  of  the  bishops,"  says  Eusebins. 


CONSTANTINE'S  DONATION  FORGED.  253 

that  they  may  not  "be  drawn  away  from  the  service  due  the 
divinity,  but  rather  may  devote  themselves  to  their  proper  law^ 
without  any  molestation. "(") 

In  so  far,  therefore,  as  tlie  general  history  of  Constan- 
tine's  administration  of  public  affairs  is  concerned,  tliere  is 
no  contemporaneous  history  to  show  that  he  recognized  any 
temporal  power  in  the  hands  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome.  On 
the  contrary,  the  assumption  that  he  did  seems  so  utterly 
groundless  as  to  leave  no  room  for  further  discussion.  The 
further  pretense,  that  by  actual  imperial  donation  he  made 
over  Rome  and  Italy  to  the  popes,  had  its  origin  in  the  fer- 
tile brain  of  Pope  Adrian  I,  who,  in  order  to  obtain  impor- 
tant concessions  from  Charlemagne,  doubtless  considered  it 
necessary  to  impress  him  with  tlie  belief  that  he  would, 
by  granting  them,  be  following  the  example  of  Constan- 
tine.C^) 

Previous  to  this  time,  says  Dr.  DoUinger,"  there  is  not  a 
trace  to  be  found  of  the  donation  which  has  since  become  so 
famous."(*')  And  he  shows  that  while,  from  time  to  time, 
many  canonists  and  theologians  have  maintained  its  verity, 
in  order  to  found  upon  it  "a  universal  dominion  of  the  pope," 
yet  that  after  Baronius,  one  of  the  most  distinguished  of  the 
Church  annalists,  pronounced  it  a  forgery, "  all  these  voices 
wdiich  had  shortly  before  been  so  numerous  and  so  loud  be- 
came dumb."(")  The  fact  is,  that  no  writers  who  have  prop- 
er regard  for  their  veracity  now  maintain  the  truthfulness 
of  this  donation  of  Constantine.  The  fraud  served  its  pur- 
pose during  the  Middle  Ages,  among  an  ignorant  and  super- 
stitious population,  but  it  no  longer  bears  the  test  of  intelli- 
gent scrutiny.  Dean  Milman  calls  it  a  "deliberate  inven- 
tion," a  "monstrous  fable,"  and  a  "forgery  as  clumsy  as 
audacious."(^°)  Reichel  characterizes  it  as  "an  ignorant 
blunder  and  a  falsehood  —  a  falsehood,  however,  let  it  be 
borne  in  mind,  which  faithfully  reflects  the  thoughts  and 

C^)  Ensebius,  bk.  x.,  ch,  vii. 

(*^)  "Fables  Eespecting  the  Popes  of  the  Middle  Ages,"  by  Dr.  John  I. 
Ign.  Von  Dollinger,  London  ed.,  p.  118.  This  book  was  written  when  the 
author  was  in  full  fellowship  with  the  Church  of  Rome. 

C«)  Ibid.,  p.  108.  CO  Ibid.,  ^.  177. 

O  Milman's  "Latin  Christianity,"  vol.  i.,  p.  94. 


254  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

feelings  of  the  age  which  gave  it  birth."('')  To  accumulate 
proofs  upon  this  subject,  iu  this  inquiring  age,  Avould  seem 
to  be  a  work  of  supererogation. 

Not  only  is  there  nothing  in  all  the  concessions  of  Con- 
stantine  from  which  a  grant  of  the  most  limited  temporal 
jurisdiction  can  be  inferred,  but  in  the  edict  preserved  by 
Eusebius  he  excludes  all  idea  of  the  kind.  The  clergy  are 
set  apart  by  it  from  those  engaged  in  secular  employments, 
and  admonished  to  "  devote  themselves  to  their  proper 
law"  —  that  is,  to  the  discharge  of  their  ecclesiastical  and 
priestly  functions.  He  had,  according  to  Sozomen,  intrust- 
ed them  with  the  most  important  offices  under  the  govern- 
ment after  he  won  the  Roman  sceptre,  in  return  for  their  as- 
sistance to  him.  But  it  is  evident,  from  what  he  said  of 
them,  in  the  epistle  given  by  Eusebius,  about  their  disgrace- 
ful and  detestable  variances  with  each  other,  that  he  found 
it  necessary  to  prohibit  their  further  intermeddling  with 
temporal  aifairs,  and  to  take  upon  himself,  as  emperor,  the 
assembling  of  a  counci)  to  heal  their  dissensions.  It  must 
be  remembered  that  Constantino  did  not  reside  at  Rome. 
At  the  time  he  took  possession  of  the  empire  he  passed,  says 
Gibbon, "  no  more  than  two  or  three  months  in  Rome,  which 
he  visited  twice  during  the  remainder  of  his  life,  to  celebrate 
the  solemn  festivals  of  the  tenth  and  of  the  twentieth  years 
of  his  reign. "(")  After  relieving  the  city  from  the  cruel 
tyranny  of  Maxentius,  he  abolished  the  praetorian  guards,  to 
prevent  the  recurrence  of  abuses.  But  "  he  made  no  inno- 
vation in  the  government,  magistracy,  and  offices,  and  abro- 
gated no  laws  except  such  as  were  useless  and  unjust;"  re- 
storing, as  was  shown  by  an  inscription  upon  a  public  statue, 
"  the  Senate  and  the  people  of  Rome  to  their  ancient  splen- 
dor." (")     It  is  evident,  therefore,  that,  in  his  absence  from 

CO  "The  See  of  Rome  in  the  Middle  Apjes,"  by  Reichel,  London  ed.,  p. 
58.  This  author  gives  the  letter  of  Pope  Adrian  I.  to  Charles  Martel, 
wherein  he  sets  forth  this  pretended  donation,  in  order  to  Avin  his  assistance 
against  his  enemies. — Ibid.,  note  1. 

O  Milman's  Gibbon's  "Rome,"  vol.  i.,  p.  485. 

(^0  "  Modern  History,"  by  Dr.  Fredet,  p.  101.  This  is  a  work  of  great 
research,  by  a  professor  of  history  in  St.  Mary's  Roman  Catholic  College, 
Baltimore. 


CONSTANTINE  RETAINED  TEMPORAL  POWER.        255 

Rome,  while  engaged  in  prosecuting  his  wars,  he  left  the 
temporal  government  just  as  he  found  it,  which  entirely  for- 
bids the  idea  of  any  temporal  authority  having  been  con- 
ferred upon  the  pope.  He  merely  tried  tlie  experiment  of 
admitting  the  clergy  into  the  magistracy,  but  soon  repented 
of  this.  What  he  did  in  that  direction  was  far  more  calcu- 
hited  to  excite  ambition  than  piety,  and  subsequent  history 
shows  that  it  did  lead  to  those  corruptions  which  carried 
the  Church  far  away  from  its  apostolic  purity. 

Why  Providence  permitted  such  consequences  to  follow 
is  beyond  all  liuman  comprehension.  We  can  no  more 
fathom  the  mysteries  in  the  plan  of  the  Divine  Government 
than  we  can  give  sensibility  to  a  grain  of  sand.  Life  abounds 
in  enigmas,  with  limitations  and  conditions  which  nothing 
but  omnipotent  wisdom  could  have  imposed  ;  and  he  who 
attempts  to  measure  them  by  standards  of  human  knowledge 
will  find  impediments  at  every  step  which  his  sagacity  can 
not  overleap.  The  naturalist  may  watch  the  germ  from  its 
first  springing  into  life  to  the  full  maturity  of  the  flower, 
and  trace  out  all  the  stages  of  its  existence  with  truthful  ac- 
curacy ;  and  the  scientist  may  gather  from  the  earth,  the 
ocean,  and  the  rocks,  evidences  of  time,  marked  out  by  lines 
of  growth,  as  age  is  marked  by  furrows  upon  the  human 
fiice  ;  but  in  the  entire  panorama  of  being  there  is  every 
thing  to  show — from  the  minutest  to  the  grandest  scenes  in 
nature,  and  in  the  origin,  growth,  and  downfall  of  govern- 
ments— tliat  God  is  the  omnipresent  sovereign,  and  that  his 
providences  are  "past  finding  out."  He  is  everywhere  pres- 
ent in  history ;  yet  he  has  given  man  his  intelligent  superi- 
ority over  all  other  created  beings,  tliat  he  may  work  out  re- 
sults witliin  the  compass  of  his  powers,  for  the  divine  honor 
and  his  own  good.  That  he  designed,  from  tlie  beginning, 
the  ultimate  triumph  of  virtue  over  vice,  of  truth  over  false- 
hood, and  of  Christian  humility  over  ambition  and  selfish- 
ness, the  infidel  may  deny  with  his  lips,  but  can  not  doubt 
in  his  heart.  But  it  was  no  part  of  his  infinite  plan  that  this 
victory  should  be  won  in  a  day,  a  year,  or  a  century;  or 
his  Son,  when  he  mingled  in  the  affairs  of  the  world,  robed 
in  our  humanity,  would  have  thrown  down  all  the  altars 
of  paganism  and  established  his  universal  kingdom  on  the 


256  THE  PAPACY  AND  TlIE  CIVIL  POWER. 

earth.  Instead  of  this,  he  lived  and  ministered  long  enoiigli 
to  set  an  example  of  perfect  purity  to  man,  and  left  his  Gos- 
pel in  charge  of  his  apostles,  that  its  precepts  might  teach 
mankind  those  principles  of  truth,  justice,  morality,  and 
charity,  which  nature,  without  revelation,  does  not  teach. 
The  apostles  began  their  work  by  establishing  the  Churcli, 
first  at  Jerusalem,  then  at  Antioch,  and  then  at  other  places 
throughout  Asia,  where  the  Jew,  with  or  without  circum- 
cision, entered  into  the  fold  ;  leaving  the  Gentile  world  yet 
without  a  knowledge  of  the  Word.  From  these  beginnings 
Christianity  was  carried  to  Rome,  where  the  foundation  of 
a  new  Church  was  laid  under  the  jDreaching  of  Paul,  over 
which  he  watched  for  "  two  whole  years  "  in  "  his  own  hired 
house-''^")  Here  it  continued  to  exist,  "  without  spot  or 
blemish,"  until  worldly  ambition  crept  into  the  flock,  when 
Constantino  tempted  it  by  gifts  of  ofiice,  and  money,  and 
property,  and  power.  Then  the  grand  consummation  of  the 
Christian  triumph  was  postponed.  Rome  had  already  held 
the  pagan  world  in  subjugation,  and  her  bishops  and  clergy, 
tempted  by  the  remembrance  of  her  former  greatness,  were 
not  content  to  rest  in  their  career  of  ambition,  until  all  tlie 
primitive  churches  were  brought  down  in  humiliation  at 
their  feet.  When  this  was  accomplished,  stimulated  and 
emboldened  by  their  first  success,  they  reached  out  to  grasp 
the  sceptre  of  the  world.  Who  can  tell  how  much  the  na- 
tions have  been  impeded  in  their  march  of  progress  by  these 
events  ?  But  for  them  the  world  might  have  escaped  the 
blight  and  paralysis  of  the  Middle  Ages,  and  have  pursued 
an  unbroken  and  unchecked  course  of  advancement  from  the 
beginning  of  Christianity.  And,  instead  of  now  lamenting 
the  loss  of  all  her  temporal  power,  and  mourning  to  see  her 
pope  sitting  among  shattered  and  fallen  columns,  without  a 
crown  upon  his  head,  the  Church  of  Rome  miglit  have  held 
to-day  such  a  place  in  the  affections  of  mankind  as  would 
have  made  her  w^ord,  in  spiritual  things,  tlie  universal  guide 
of  human  conduct. 

C*)  Acts  xxviii,,  30.  Paul,  though  a  prisoner,  was  not  in  actual  confine- 
ment ;  and  his  sphere  of  Christian  labor  in  Rome  would  not  have  been  lim- 
ited to  a  "hired  house,"  if  there  had  been  a  church  already  established  there, 
under  the  ministry  of  Peter. 


ARGUMENT  OF  ARCHBISHOP  KENRICK.  257 


CHAPTER  IX. 

Same  Power  conferred  on  all  the  Apostles. — Roman  Church  not  the  First 
Established. — Ancient  Churches  Equal. — Leo  I.  Great  and  Ambitious. — 
His  Interviews  with  Attila  and  Genseric. — Persecution  of  Priscillian. — 
Rival  Popes. — Belisarius  seized  Rome,  and  made  Vigilius  Pope. — Pope 
Silverius  put  to  Death. — Vigilius  and  Justinian. — The  "Three  Chapters." 
— Popes  elected  with  Emperor's  Consent. — Gregory  I. 

It  has  been  already  seen  that  Archbishop  Kenrick  has 
treated  the  question  of  the  pope's  temporal  power  with  more 
fairness  than  is  common  among  its  defenders.  This  was  to 
have  been  expected  on  account  of  his  superior  learning,  and 
was  alike  due  to  the  intelligence  of  the  age  and  to  his  own 
Christian  character.  He  does  not  grope  about  like  a  blind 
man — as  many  of  the  papal  writers  do — amidst  the  fabulous 
obscurity  of  the  early  centuries,  to  hunt  for  inferences  which 
have  nothing  but  the  imagination  to  support  them,  and  so 
torture  them  that  they  may  appear  like  facts.  Nor  does 
he  pretend — as  Pope  Pius  IX.  and  the  Jesuits  do  —  that 
the  temporal  power  was  divinely  conferred  on  Peter;  that 
it  is  "  of  necessity,"  and,  therefore,  has  always  existed  since 
Christ  established  his  Church.  Yet  even  he,  with  all  his 
acknowledged  sagacity,  has  not  entirely  escaped  the  Jesuit 
snare;  for,  after  telling  us  that  the  disciples  had  "no  dominion 
over  the  least  spot  of  earth,"  and  that  Peter  had  none  "  of  the 
appendages  of  royalty"  given  him,  he  proceeds  immediately 
to  say  that  "  he  had  powers  of  a  supernatural  order,  for  the 
government  of  men  in  order  to  salvation."(') 

The  critic  might  justly  say  that  the  distinguished  arch- 
bishop has  here  fallen  into  what  the  lawyers  call  a  non 
sequitur;  for  it  is  by  no  means  a  legitimate  inference  to  say 
that,  because  Christ  left  Peter  without  temporal  dominion, 
therefore  he  conferred  supernatural  powers  of  government 


(')  "The  Primacy  of  the  Apostolic  See,"  by  Kenrick.  part  ii.,  ch.  i., 
p.  225. 

17 


268  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

upon  him.  Our  present  inquiries,  however,  are  of  a  more 
serious  and  important  character.  What  idea  he  intended  to 
convey  by  "powers  of  a  supernatural  order"  is  not  clear. 
Such  power  must,  necessarily,  exceed  all  natural  power,  and 
can  only  exist  miraculously.  Its  possessor  must  be  able  to 
alter  the  laws  of  nature.  Was  it,  therefore,  given  to  Peter 
to  be  exercised  in  spirituals  alone  ?  or  in  temporals  also  ?  or 
in  spirituals  of  so  comprehensive  a  nature  as  to  include  tem- 
porals ?  In  whatsoever  degree  it  was  conferred,  it  was  the 
power  to  work  miracles ;  and,  as  such,  was  possessed  by  all 
the  other  apostles  equally  with  Peter.  When  Christ  or- 
dained the  twelve,  and  sent  them  forth  to  preach,  he  gave 
them  all  "  power  to  heal  sicknesses,  and  to  cast  out  devils."(') 
And  as  they  went  through  the  towns  of  Galilee,  they  per- 
plexed Herod  the  tetrarch  by  "  healing  every  where."(^)  And 
"many  wonders  and  signs  were  done  by  the  apostles"  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost.  (*)  Peter  healed  the  impotent  man  in 
the  temple. (^)  And  Philip  worked  miracles  in  Samaria.  (") 
And  when  Paul  and  Barnabas  went  into  Iconium,  Paul 
caused  the  lame  man  of  Lystra  to  leap  up  and  walk.(^) 
"And  God  wrought  special  miracles  by  the  hands  of  Paul" 
at  Ephesus.(^)  And  other  evidences  abundantly  show  that 
miraculous  gifts  were  conferred  upon  all  the  apostles.  Then, 
if,  by  the  fact  of  imparting  supernatural  powers,  Christ  de- 
signed that  they  should  be  employed  "for  the  government 
of  men  in  order  to  salvation,"  there  was  no  special  designa- 
tion of  Peter  for  that  purpose,  any  more  than  the  other  apos- 
tles. They  were  all  equal  in  the  possession  of  the  power; 
and,  as  whatever  authority  they  had  must  have  arisen  out 
of  it,  they  were  equal  in  authority  also.  To  select  Peter, 
therefore,  as  the  sole  custodian  of  the  supernatural  power,  in 
illustration  of  the  authority  of  the  pope  over  temporals,  is,  to 
say  the  least  of  it,  an  evasion  of  the  question.  That  he  had 
such  power  is  not  denied  by  any  except  those  who  reject 
revelation.  But  that  it  was  given  him  for  interference  with 
the  temporal  affairs  of  government  is  shown  by  no  part  of 

O  Mark  iii.,  15.  The  Douay  and  Protestant  versions  agree  in  this  ren- 
dering. 

C)  Luke  ix.,  6.  (*)  Acts  ii.,  43.  •  C)  Acts  iii.,  7. 

O  Acts  viii.,  6.  C)  Acts  xiv.,  10.  C)  Acts  xix.,  11. 


THE  ASIATIC  CHURCHES.  259 

the  divine  record ;  nor  can  it  be  inferred  from  what  was  done 
by  him  or  any  other  of  the  apostles  in  their  ministry.  If 
Christ  had  designed  such  interference,  he  would  have  indi- 
cated it  by  some  example  of  his  own  ;  and  if  he  had  intend- 
ed to  establish  a  Church  at  Rome,  founded  alone  upon  Pe- 
ter, and  with  a  distinct  organization,  to  be  maintained  by  su- 
pernatural power,  he  would  have  conferred  such  power  alone 
upon  Peter,  and  not  upon  the  other  apostles  also.  If  the 
possession  of  supernatural  power  gave  authority  to  establish 
the  Church,  and  this  power  was  possessed  by  all  the  apostles 
alike,  then  the  churches  at  Jerusalem,  at  Antioch,  and  other 
places  in  Asia,  which  preceded  that  at  Rome,  antedated  the 
Roman  Church  in  the  possession  of  the  power  to  govern  men 
in  order  to  salvation.  And  then,  also,  the  churches  estab- 
lished by  Paul  at  Corinth,  and  Ephesus,  and  other  places, 
stood  upon  a  precise  equality,  as  it  regards  authority  and 
jurisdiction,  with  that  at  Rome,  even  if  it  be  conceded  that 
the  latter  was  established  by  Peter.  Christ  gave  to  neither 
of  them  precedence  over  the  other,  nor  over  any  other  of  the 
apostles.  Whether  either  of  them,  in  establishing  a  church, 
intended  to  transfer  to  it  the  supernatural  power  which  he 
possessed,  to  be  preserved  throughout  all  time,  their  records 
do  not  instruct  us.  But  that  either  one  transferred  more  of 
such  power  than  another,  or  that  Peter  was  the  only  one  who 
transferred  any  at  all,  is  a  proposition  which  may  be  dogmat- 
ically asserted,  as  it  is,  but  can  not  be  maintained  by  argu- 
ment. Therefore,  when  Christ  said,  "  Upon  this  rock  I  will 
build  my  Church,"  he  meant  to  declare  himself  to  be  the  rock 
upon  which  each  and  all  the  apostolic  churches  should  be 
founded,  with  the  authority  he  conferred  upon  all  the  apos- 
tles as  the  origin  of  their  unity.  The  unity  designed  by  him 
was  in  the  beginning,  and  "  the  beginning  proceeds  from 
unity  "  in  him,  says  the  eloquent  Cyprian,  one  of  the  fore- 
most of  "  the  fathers,"  and  a  martyr  of  the  third  century. 
Therefore,  he  continues,  "Assuredly  the  rest  of  the  apostles 
were  also  the  same  as  Peter,  endowed  with  a  like  partner- 
ship both  of  honor  and  power  ;"  and  "  the  episcopate  is  one, 
each  part  of  which  is  held  hy  each  for  the  whole.^^(^) 

C)  "  The  Writings  of  Cyprian,"  vol.  i.,  pp.  280,  281.     "  Antenicene  Chris- 
tian Librarj,"  vol.  viii. 


260  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

Archbishop  Kenrick  does  not  argue  his  proposition  ;  he 
merely  states  it.  But  it  is  easy  to  see  that  its  logical  re- 
sult is  this:  that  if  the  supernatural  power  includes  author- 
ity over  temporals,  because  they  are  embraced  in  spirituals, 
then  the  temporal  power  was  conferred  in  the  act  of  confer- 
ring the  spiritual,  and  existed  alike,  from  necessity,  in  all 
the  apostolic  churches.  Inasmuch,  therefore,  as  he  had  just 
stated  that  the  temporal  power  of  the  pope  was  not  divine- 
ly conferred,  and  undoubtedly  means  that  the  supernatural 
was,  his  consistency  can  be  maintained  in  no  other  w\ay 
than  by  setting  him  down  as  emphatic  authorit.y  against 
the  whole  Jesuit  theory  of  the  temporal  "  patrimony  of 
Peter." 

It  is  of  no  consequence  to  inquire  here  how  long  the 
supernatural  power  conferred  upon  the  apostles  continued 
to  be  possessed  by  their  successors,  in  the  work  of  spread- 
ing the  Gospel — whether  it  ceased  with  those  who  came 
directly  in  contact  with  them,  or  with  John,  the  last  sur- 
vivor. For  if,  at  the  beginning,  the  power  was  equally 
possessed  by  all  the  apostles,  and  not  by  Peter  alone  to  the 
exclusion  of  the  others,  it  would  be  absurd  and  illogical  to 
say  that  it  survived  to  a  single  church  alone,  or  to  the 
bishop  of  a  single  church.  That  would  bring  about  a  unity 
not  founded  upon  Christ,  but  upon  the  supernatural  power 
of  one  apostle — not  a  unity  of  affection,  but  of  compulsion 
— for  none  but  those  who  argue  falsely  will  insist  that  the 
apostles  changed  their  relations  to  each  other  after  the 
Crucifixion,  or  that  they  designed  that  the  churches  they 
established  upon  principles  of  equality  should  have  that 
equality  either  destroyed  or  disturbed.  It  is  sufficient  to 
know  now  that  even  the  pope,  with  infallibility  to  aid  him, 
has  no  supernatural  power;  that  he  can  not  set  aside  a 
single  law  of  nature,  or  perform  any  other  miraculous  act. 
Whatever  supposed  miracles  are  now  attracting  the  no- 
tice and  exciting  the  devotion  of  the  faithful  are  attribu- 
ted to  the  "  Mother  of  God,"  not  to  the  pope.  And  there- 
fore, upon  the  hypothesis  of  Archbishop  Kenrick,  if  all  the 
right  which  the  papacy  has  to  interfere  with  temporals 
arose  out  of  the  supernatural  power  conferred  on  Peter, 
and  if  the  pope  now  possesses  no  supernatural  power,  Peter 


APOSTLES  HAD  NO  TEMPORAL  POWER.  261 

is  left  without  a  successor  in  the  temporal  order!  And 
that  is  tlie  end  of  the  controversy,  until  that  power  shall 
be  reconferred.  That  the  world  will  be  better  off  without 
conceding  it  to  the  pope,  is  abundantly  proven  by  the  fact 
that  the  freer  the  modern  nations  have  been  from  the  papal 
influences,  the  more  rapidly  have  they  progressed;  and  still 
more  clearly  by  the  additional  fact,  that  since  the  load  of 
papal  oppression  has  been  removed  from  the  States  of  the 
Church,  Rome  is  beginning  to  assume  a  dignity  and  im- 
portance which  she  has  not  known  for  centuries. 

The  frank  admissions  of  Archbishop  Kenrick  in  relation 
to  the  destitute  condition  of  the  Apostle  Peter,  and  his  en- 
tire want  of  dominion,  leave  those  who  defend  the  divine 
foundation  of  the  temporal  power  without  any  thing  to  rest 
their  theory  on.  They  will  not  pretend  that  any  thing 
done  by  Christ  was  improperly  done.  The  Church  would 
pronounce  them  heretics  if  they  were  not  ready  to  concede 
that  the  Christianity  he  established,  and  the  Church  he 
founded  by  apostolic  agency,  were  necessarily  possessed  of 
the  utmost  perfection.  If,  then,  Christ  established  a  per- 
fect system  of  Christianity,  and  founded  a  perfect  church, 
and  sent  forth  Peter  and  the  other  disciples  "  without  scrip 
or  staff*,"  with  no  "  dominion "  over  any  part  of  earth,  and 
without  "  wealth,  or  any  of  the  appendages  of  royalty,"  to 
extend  the  influence  of  religion  and  enlarge  the  borders 
of  the  Church,  is  it  not  an  impeachment  of  the  Divine  plan 
to  say,  as  they  do,  that  temporal  power,  and  large  wealth, 
and  the  appendages  of  royalty  are  necessary  to  the  propa- 
gation of  the  Gospel?  The  apostles,  without  any  power  or 
dominion,  did  the  work  of  the  Master  well  and  faithfully, 
and  sought  after  neither  at  the  hands  of  governments  or 
individuals.  But  when  those  who  ought  to  have  followed 
in  their  footsteps  turned  away  after  temporal  dominion, 
they  set  up  their  wisdom  above  that  of  God,  they  substi- 
tuted their  pride  for  the  apostolic  humility,  and  checked  the 
progress  of  Christianity  by  blocking  up  the  avenues  to  re- 
ligious truth,  and  the  highways  of  the  world's  advancement. 
Demonstration  of  this  is  found  in  a  long  array  of  facts  con- 
nected with  the  origin  and  growth  of  the  temporal  power. 
History  abundantly  proves  that  this  power  has  been  em- 


262  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

ployed  by  ambitious  popes  for  their  own  personal  advance- 
ment; and  that  it  has  been  so  unblushingly  used  in  viola- 
tion of  the  teachings  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  that  many 
of  them  have  made  it  equally,  if  not  more,  heretical  to  deny 
its  existence  as  to  deny  the  divinity  of  the  Saviour!  Pe- 
ter lived  all  his  life  without  dominion,  and  at  his  death,  says 
Archbishop  Kenrick,  "  bequeathed  to  his  successors  no  in- 
heritance but  the  labors  and  dangers  of  his  office ;"(")  and 
yet  the  present  pope  is  convulsing  the  world  with  intense 
excitement  by  continually  asserting  that  Christ  conferred 
temporal  dominion  and  royal  authority  on  Peter ;  that  he, 
as  Peter's  successor,  is  entitled  to  the  same  dominion  by  in- 
heritance; and  that  those  who  have  taken  it  away,  as  well 
as  those  who  deny  the  legitimacy  of  his  claim,  have  sinned 
against  heaven  and  are  accursed  of  God !  Why  should  he 
mourn  so  sadly,  and  his  supporters  grieve  so  much,  at  the 
loss  of  that  which,  as  Archbishop  Kenrick  shows,  has  been 
added  by  others  since  the  death  of  Peter?  Has  Christianity 
so  changed  since  then  that  it  needs  the  aid  of  external  force 
and  temporal  power  to  sustain  it  ? 

But,  notwithstanding  these  admissions,  so  candidly  and 
frankly  made  by  Archbishop  Kenrick,  he  falls,  at  last,  into 
the  same  course  of  reasoning  so  common  among  the  sup- 
porters of  the  papacy ;  and  finds,  in  the  circumstances  re- 
corded by  him,  enough  to  satisfy  his  own  mind  that  when 
the  popes  did  come  into  possession  of  their  temporal  power 
it  was  legitimately  obtained,  and  without  any  usurpation. 
Yet  he  has  not,  and  could  not,  tell  the  time  of  this  important 
event.  He  readily  concedes  that  the  document  so  frequent- 
ly referred  to  by  the  Jesuits  as  the  donation  of  Constantine 
is  "supposititious;"  yet  concludes,  with  De  Maistre,  that, 
notwithstanding  this,  Constantine  did  make  a  donation  of 
some  kind,  the  nature  and  extent  of  which,  however,  he  does 
not  attempt  to  explain  ;  for  the  manifest  reason,  that  he 
could  not.  The  most  that  he  can  say  of  it  is  based  upon 
the  authority  of  the  infidel  Voltaire,  who  said  that  the 
Church  of  St.  John,  in  Rome,  was  presented  with  a  large 
revenue  and  lands  in  Cambria,  and  that  other  emperors,  sub- 

(")  "The  Primacy, "etc.,  by  Kenrick,  p.  525. 


REASONING  OF  ARCHBISHOP  KENRICK.  263 

sequent  to  Constantine,  increased  this  patrimony.  But  Vol- 
taire expressly  says  that  this  was  not  given  to  the  pope,  but 
was  a  nriere  donation  of  property  to  the  Church — to  a  par- 
ticular church  in  Rome;  and  it  could  not,  therefore,  have 
been  any  part  of  the  papal  patrimony  out  of  which  it  was 
possible  for  the  temporal  power  to  have  arisen.  It  is,  un- 
doubtedly, true  that  the  pope,  as  the  head  of  the  Church  in 
Rome,  did  have  a  certain  amount  of  authority  necessary  to 
enable  him  to  see  that  the  property  of  the  Church  there, 
and  of  those  within  that  jurisdiction,  was  properly  taken 
care  of  and  managed.  In  the  aggregate  this  property  was, 
even  then,  very  considerable,  and  yielded  a  large  revenue. 
Archbishop  Kenrick  says,  upon  the  authority  of  Fleury,  that 
it  included  "  some  houses  and  farms,  not  only  in  Italy,  but 
likewise  in  Sicily,  Africa,  and  Greece."  But  this  authority 
could  not  have  been  any  thing  more  than  what  was  neces- 
sary to  protect  the  use  and  enjoyment  of  this  estate — the 
mere  authority  of  ownership,  under  the  civil  law,  just  as  is 
now  secured  to  all  the  churches  in  the  United  States.  The 
wealth  yielded  by  it  was  attended  with  influence,  but  not 
necessarily  such  as  pertains  to  the  temporal  power  claimed 
by  the  popes.  It  was,  doubtless,  such  as  large  possessions 
have  produced  in  every  age  ;  for,  in  this  respect,  it  is  not 
probable  that  society  has  ever  undergone  much  change. 
The  power  acquired  by  the  possession  of  property  is  of  a 
very  different  kind  from  that  involved  in  the  control  of  gov- 
ernments and  the  management  of  public  affairs.  Archbish- 
op Kenrick  thinks  that,  in  the  case  of  the  popes,  it  was  such 
that,  after  Constantine  removed  the  capital  of  the  empire 
from  Rome  to  Constantinople,  "  the  Bishop  of  Rome  "  was 
left  "in  a  position  almost  independent;  the  pontifical  chair 
being  no  longer  overshadowed  by  the  imperial  throne."(") 
In  proof  of  this,  he  does  not  cite  any  grant  or  concession  to 
the  pope,  but  merely  a  reply  of  Pope  Leo  the  Great  to  the 
Emperor  Marcian,  when  he  excused  himself  from  attending 
a  general  council,  on  the  ground  that  his  absence  from  Rome 
would  endanger  the  public  peace,  stating  that  "  temporal  ne- 
cessity does  npt  allow  me  to  leave  Rome."     But  the  learn- 

.   (")  "The  Primacy,"  etc.,  by  Kenrick,  p.  256. 


264  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

ed  archbishop  strangely  overlooked  several  important  facts 
which,  fairly  interpreted,  do  not  support  his  conclusions.  In 
the  first  place,  we  have  seen  that  Constantine  never  resided 
at  Rome,  an^  therefore  the  removal  of  the  capital  to  Con- 
stantinople could  not  have  made  the  pontifical  chair  any  the 
less  overshadowed  than  it  had  been  before.  In  the  second 
place,  we  have  also  seen  that  when  Constantine  conquered 
Rome  from  Maxentius  he  made  no  change  in  the  govern- 
ments "  l^or  did  he  make  any  when  he  removed  the  capital, 
other  than  to  divide  the  empire  into  four  parts,  leaving 
Rome  under  the  government  of  prefects,  who  represented 
the  imperial  power.  This  temporal  power  was  not  shared 
by  the  popes  during  his  life.  In  the  third  place,  we  have 
also  seen,  upon  the  authority  of  Eusebius,  that  he  had  be- 
come dissatisfied  with  the  bishops  and  clergy  on  account 
of  disgraceful  quarrels,  and  had,  by  imperial  edict,  confined 
them  "  to  their  proper  law,"  that  is,  to  their  ecclesiastical 
functions ;  a  fact  which  forbids  the  idea  that  he  conferred 
temporal  power  upon  the  pope,  when  he  knew  that  thereby 
he  would  violate  his  own  edict.  In  the  fourth  place,  he  be- 
came in  the  end  so  greatly  dissatisfied  with  the  orthodox 
clergy,  that  he  never  united,  by  baptism,  with  the  Roman 
Church,  but  "banished  many  Catholic  bishops."(''')  And 
still  further,  one  hundred  years  had  elapsed  from  the  death 
of  Constantine  to  the  beginning  of  the  pontificate  of  Leo  the 
Great,  during  which  time  so  many  changes  had  occurred  in 
the  empire,  under  the  government  of  more  than  a  dozen  em- 
perors, that  the  condition  of  affairs  created  by  Constantine 
could  not  be  properly  inferred  from  any  thing  said  by  Leo 
to  Marcian.  The  intervening  years  were  too  numerous,  and 
the  multitude  of  events  too  varied. 

But  a  true  understanding  of  the  pontificate  of  Leo  I.  will 
show  that,  although  he  made  extraordinary  and  almost  su- 
perhuman efforts  to  grasp  power  which  did  not  properly  be- 
long to  the  papacy,  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  all  the  other 
churches  into  obedience  to  that  at  Rome,  yet  that  what  he 
did  in  that  direction  was  based  exclusively  upon  his  claim 
of  spiritual  supremacy,  and  not  upon  his  possession  of  tem- 

C^)  "Encyclopedia  Americana," art,  Constantine. 


THE  POPE  INFERIOR  TO  THE  EMPEROR.  265 

poral  power,  either  as  conferred  by  grant  from  the  empire, 
or  as  included  in  the  spiritual.  Any  such  claim  as  the  lat- 
ter, then  asserted  by  him,  would  have  brought  him  in  open 
collision  with  the  emperor  —  a  result  which,  ambitious  as 
he  was,  he  was  extremely  and  studiously  anxious  to  avoid. 
Yet,  at  the  same  time,  it  is  not  to  be  disputed  that  Leo 
went  as  far  as  he  dared  to  attach  temporal  supremacy  to  the 
spiritual  "  patrimony  of  Peter  ;"  and  if  he  failed,  it  was  ow- 
ing more  to  the  firmness  with  which  the  Emperor  Marcian 
retained  possession  of  the  imperial  power  than  to  the  want 
of  skill,  tact,  and  ambition  on  the  part  of  the  pope ;  for  the 
acknowledged  possession  of  all  which  qualities  he  has  been 
placed  upon  the  calendar  of  Roman  saints,  and  has  won  the 
title  of  Great.  He  complained  that  the  Patriarch  of  Con- 
stantinople had  asserted  rights  as  belonging  to  that  see, 
which  he  insisted  did  not  exist ;  and  in  a  letter  to  Marcian 
begged  him  "to  make  use  of  his  authority  to  keep  the 
patriarch  in  order,  and  hinder  him  from  encroaching  upon 
the  rights  of  other  bishops ;"(")  which  conclusively  proves 
that,  even  in  reference  to  such  spiritual  jurisdiction  as  in- 
volved the  obedience  of  other  churches  and  bishops,  he  rec- 
ognized himself  as  dependent  on  the  emperor.  When  he 
wrote  to  the  bishops  he  assumed  an  imperial  air,  and  ex- 
pressed himself  in  words  of  imperial  authority ;  but  when 
he  addressed  the  emperor  he  exhibited  the  deference  of 
inferiority. 

The  first  Council  of  Nice,  in  the  year  325,  had  fixed  the 
time  for  the  celebration  of  Easter,  making  it  a  matter  of  re- 
ligious faith  ;  yet  Pope  Leo  L,  more  than  a  hundred  years 
after,  finding  a  controversy  upon  the  subject  still  going  on 
among  Christians,  wrote  to  the  Emperor  Marcian,  beseech- 
ing him  "  to  command  "  that  steps  be  taken  to  bring  about 
uniformity. (**)  He  also  wrote  to  the  empress,  exhorting  her 
to  use  her  authority  to  bring  some  monks  to  submit  to  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon,  which  was  held  during  his  pontificate 
and  was  one  of  the  ecumenical  councils.  (^^)  He  had  no 
power  to  restore  Juvenal,  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  to  his  see, 

(")  "  Eccl.  Hist.,"  by  Du  Pin,  vol.  iv.,  p.  96.  ('*)  Ibid.,  p.  99. 

C^)  Ibid. 


266  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

after  he  had  been  expelled  ;  and  when  it  was  done  by  the 
emperor,  thanked  him  for  it.^")  When  disturbances  existed 
in  the  Church  of  Alexandria,  and  both  the  contesting  par- 
ties had  addressed  him  on  the  subject,  not  having  authority 
to  quiet  them,  he  appealed  to  the  Emperor  Leo  to  do  so,  and 
not  to  suft'er  heretics  to  thrust  themselves  into  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Church.  (")  He  also  solicited  the  same  emperor 
to  send  orthodox  bishops  to  Alexandria,  and  to  restore  the 
bishops  of  Egypt,  who  had  been  driven  out  by  the  here- 
tics. ('")  When  the  emperor,  of  his  own  accord,  removed  an 
heretical  bishop  of  the  see  of  Alexandria,  Pope  Leo  congrat- 
ulated him  upon  the  act,  and  requested  the  appointment  of 
an  orthodox  bishop  in  his  place. ('*)  Can  there  be  any  room 
to  doubt,  in  the  light  of  these  facts,  gathered  from  the  work 
of  a  distinguished  Roman  Catholic  historian,  about  the  rela- 
tions existing  between  the  Emperors  Marcian  and  Leo  and 
Pope  Leo  L  ?  That  his  condition  was  one  of  dependence,  is 
left  beyond  controversy ;  and  dependence,  too,  to  such  an 
extent  as  precludes  all  possibility  of  his  having  possessed 
any  temporal  power  over  the  affairs  of  Rome  or  any  other 
part  of  the  empire,  or  any  authority  even  in  spiritual  matters 
beyond  the  local  jurisdiction  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and 
that  only  in  the  same  sense  and  to  the  same  extent  as  was 
possessed  by  other  bishops  in  the  local  jurisdiction  of  their 
several  churches. 

That  Pope  Leo  1.  was  a  great  man  and  a  great  pope,  no- 
body ought  to  question.  He  was  so  immeasurably  above 
other  popes  immediately  before  and  after  him,  that  he  is  en- 
titled to  a  prominent  place  in  history.  That  he  was  also 
ambitious,  is  an  accepted  fact.  But  we  should  keep  in  mind 
the  difference  between  the  ambition  to  govern  the  world, 
and  the  power  to  do  it :  the  one  is  a  sentiment,  the  other 
a  fact.  He,  undoubtedly,  claimed  that,  as  the  successor  of 
Peter  at  Rome,  he  was  endowed  with  divine  authority  to 
govern  all  the  churches  of  the  world  in  spiritual  things,  be- 
cause the  Roman  Church  was  the  only  one  founded  on  Peter, 
and,  therefore,  was  "the  mother  and  mistress"  of  them  all. 


(")  "  Eccl.  Hist.,"  by  Du  Pin,  vol.  iv.,  p.  99.  (")  Rid.,  p.  102. 

O  Ibid.,  p.  103.  (")  Ibid.,  p.  104. 


AMBITION  OF  TOPE  LEO  I.  267 

And  that  he  would  have  stretched  this  authority  so  far  as  to 
have  inchided  temporals,  but  for  the  decisive  stand  taken  by 
the  emperors,  is  equally  undoubted ;  for  he  went  so  far  as 
to  foreshadow  the  extraordinary  pretensions  which  other 
popes  attempted  to  justify,  several  centuries  afterward,  by 
the  authority  of  the  "  False  Decretals,"  which,  as  is  well  un- 
derstood, were  forged  for  the  express  purpose  of  supporting 
the  temporal  power.  He  brought  the  bishops  and  clergy  so 
submissively  at  his  feet,  that,  upon  the  reading  of  one  of 
his  letters  in  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  in  the  year  451,  the 
members  exclaimed,  "Accursed  be  he  that  admits  not  that 
Peter  has  spoken  by  the  mouth  of  Leo !"  He  was  the  first 
pope  whose  eloquent  preaching  stirred  the  people  of  Rome; 
and  in  the  ecclesiastical  world  he  reached  a  far  higher  de- 
gree of  distinction  than  any  of  his  predecessors.  (")  And  if, 
in  investigating  the  question  of  his  temporal  power,  we  were 
to  confine  ourselves  to  his  claim  and  acts  of  spiritual  su- 
premacy alone,  we  might  readily  fall  into  the  error  of  sup- 
posing that  he  was  really  a  temporal  prince.  Whereas,  the 
truth  is,  that  he  was  not  so  in  any  proper  sense;  though 
one  can  well  imagine  that,  as  by  far  the  greatest  man  in 
Rome,  he  must  have  been  deferred  to  by  the  Roman  people 
in  all  matters  concerning  the  peace  and  welfare  of  the  city; 
and  more  especially  so,  as  he  was  a  native  of  Rome  and  im- 
mediately and  personally  identified  with  its  fortunes.  Thus, 
when  Attila  marched  his  army  upon  the  city,  and  the  whole 
population  was  thrown  into  consternation  for  fear  he  would 
ravage  it,  as  he  had  done  Pavia  and  Milan,  the  Senate  was 
assembled  to  consider  what  measures  of  defense  should  be 
adopted.  It  was  decided  to  send  "  an  honorable  embassy  to 
Attila"  with  the  view  of  obtaining  pacific  terms;  and,  by 
common  consent,  it  was  agreed  that  Pope  Leo  should  be  at 
the  head  of  it,  not  merely  because  he  was  pope,  but  on  ac- 
count of  his  eminent  aVjility.  He  occupied  no  such  relation 
to  the  temporal  affairs  of  the  city  as  made  him  their  especial 
guardian  and  protector,  but,  at  the  solicitation  of  the  impe- 

(^°)  Milman's  "Latin  Christianity,"  vol.  i.,  ch.  iv.  ;  Eeichel's  "See  of 
Rome,"  pp.  33,  93,  145.  These  Protestant  anthorities  speak  of  him  in  high 
terms;  but  Cormenin,  a  Roman  Catholic  (vol.  i.,  p.  83),  censures  both  his 
ambition  and  his  intolerance. 


268  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

rial  authority  and  the  Senate,  accepted  the  position  and  went 
out  to  meet  tlie  terrible  prince  who  had  acquired  the  repu- 
tation of  being  "  the  scourge  of  God,"  and  "  enemy  of  man- 
kind." He  did  not  go  as  a  temporal  ruler,  but  at  the  so- 
licitation of  the  civil  authorities,  representing  the  empire,  in 
whose  hands  all  the  temporal  power  was  lodged.  He  went 
as  an  embassador,  attended  by  Avienus  and  Trigetius,  "  two 
of  the  greatest  men  of  the  empire,"  and  several  senators. 
At  the  point  where  the  Mincio  discharges  itself  into  the  Po 
near  Mantua,  an  audience  was  granted  to  the  embassy  by 
Attila,  which  resulted  in  the  withdrawal  of  his  army  beyond 
the  Danube,  and  the  safety  of  the  city.  It  is  represented  by 
the  papal  writers,  upon  the  authority  of  Baronius,  who  bor- 
rowed it  from  "  a  writer  of  the  eighth  century,"  that  tliis  re- 
sult was  brought  about  because  "Attila  saw  two  venerable 
personages,  supposed  to  be  the  apostles  St.  Peter  and  St. 
Paul,  standing  on  the  side  of  the  pope  while  he  spoke  ;(*')  as 
if  it  were  produced  by  the  special  interposition  of  Provi- 
dence. But  this  story  is  scarcely  worthy  of  credit,  because 
of  the  fact,  if  no  other,  that  Attila  was  utterly  insensible  to 
all  such  influences  and  appearances.  It  was,  undoubtedly, 
owing  to  the  irresistible  eloquence  of  Leo,  to  whom,  on  this 
account,  and  beyond  all  question,  belong  all  the  honor  and 
glory  of  the  achievement.  History  records  no  more  mag- 
nificent triumph,  none  which  exhibits  higher  personal  quali- 
ties on  the  part  of  the  chief  actor.  The  speech  of  Leo,  says 
Maimbourg,  was  "  so  fine  and  judicious,  so  forcible  and  mov- 
ing," that  Attila  "  was  immediately  softened,"  and  from  hav- 
ing been  "  a  ravening  wolf,  as  he  was  before,  he  became  gen- 
tle as  a  lamb,  and  immediately  granted  him  the  peace  he  de- 
sired."(")  There  was  nothing  supernatural  about  this;  no 
indication  of  any  direct  Providential  interference  through 
the  agency  of  Peter's  successor.  And  the  additional  story 
of  an  old  man  with  a  drawn  sword  having  been  seen  by  At- 
tila in  a  vision,  and  his  having  been  terrified  by  his  threats, 
is  still  more   unworthy  of  belief.     Leo's  reputation  needs 


C")  "Lives  of  the  Saints,"  by  Butler,  vol.  iv.,  p.  69. 

C")  "  Historical  and  Critical  Dictionary,"  by  Bayle,  art.  Leo  L,  vol.  iii., 
p.  758  (B) ;  second  edition. 


PERSECUTION  OF  PRISCILLIAN.  269 

no  such  fictitious  aid,  no  such  monkish  inventions ;  and  is 
rather  impaired  than  benefited  by  this  and  the  foolish  tale 
of  his  having  cut  off  his  hand,  and  its  miraculous  restoration, 
in  answer  to  his  prayers !(")  Yet,  great  as  his  triumph  over 
Attila  was,  there  is  satisfactory  proof  that  there  was  noth- 
ing supernatural  about  it,  in  the  fact  tliat  he  was  unable  to 
achieve  a  like  one  over  Genseric,  when  he  afterward  ad- 
vanced upon  Rome.  Although  his  influence  was  then  sufii- 
cient  to  cause  three  of  the  principal  churches,  including  that 
of  St.  Peter,  to  be  exempted  from  the  general  pillage,(")  yet 
the  city  was  otherwise  subjected  to  terrible  devastation. 
Every  thing  that  he  did,  on  both  these  occasions,  was  con- 
sistent with  distinguished  citizenship  merely ;  and  was  most 
appropriately  performed  by  him  as,  personally,  the  greatest 
of  living  bishops — greater  by  far  than  any  emperor  who  oc- 
cupied the  throne  during  his  pontificate. 

But  high  and  distinguishing  as  were  the  qualities  which 
rendered  Pope  Leo  I.  the  most  conspicuous  man  of  his  age, 
there  is  another  aspect  in  which  his  character  is  to  be  view- 
ed, which,  while  it  exhibits  his  thorough  devotion  to  the 
papacy,  leaves  a  blot  upon  his  reputation  which  no  adulation 
can  gloss  over.  And  it  proves  also  that  the  temporal  power 
in  Rome  was  not  lodged  in  his  hands,  but  in  those  of  the 
emperor;  behind  whom,  in  this  particular  instance,  it  is 
found  very  convenient  to  shelter  him  from  that  just  measure 
of  indignation  which  is  merited  by  his  persecuting  and  vin- 
dictive spirit.  An  old  law  of  the  empire,  enacted  to  please 
former  persecuting  popes,  provided  for  punishing  heretics 
icith  death ;{^^)  but  it  had  remained  for  a  long  time  unexe- 
cuted, as  the  other  emperors,  imitating  the  example  of  Con- 
stantine,  had  been  content  to  banish  them  merely.  Priscil- 
lian,  how^ever,  was  put  to  death  for  heresy  under  this  law, 
during  the  pontificate  of  Leo  I.,  and  he  specially  approved 
of  and  justified  the  bloody  deed  and  all  its  accompanying 
horrors.  The  venerable  Gnostic  was  imprisoned,  bound  with 
cords  and  chains,  by  the  cruel  and  heartless  monks,  who  were 

(")  See  Maimbourg,  quoted  by  Bayle,  vol.  iii. 
C*)  "  Historical  and  Critical  Dictionary,"  by  Bayle. 

(^^)  It  will  appear  at  the  proper  place  that  a  similar  law  was  enacted  in  En- 
gland when  the  papal  power  was  supreme  in  that  coimtry. 


270  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

the  mere  tools  and  mercenaries  of  the  pope.  They  "  made 
his  limbs  crack  under  the  pressure  of  his  chains,  and  plunged 
both  of  his  feet  into  a  heated  brazier."  They  "  tore  from 
him  his  hair  and  the  skin  of  his  skull,  they  burned  with  hot 
iron  all  parts  of  his  body,  and  poured  upon  his  wounds  boil- 
ing oil  and  melted  lead,  and  at  last  plunged  into  his  entrails 
a  rod  heated  in  the  fire,"  from  which,  of  course,  after  the 
most  intense  and  excruciating  agony,  he  expired.  (")  Al- 
though it  is  pretended  that  no  pope  ever  directly  sanctioned 
the  shedding  of  blood  on  account  of  heresy,  and  the  sup- 
porters of  the  papacy  always  throw  the  censure  of  such  cru- 
elty upon  the  secular  authorities,  yet  Leo  I.  did  approve  and 
justify  this  horrid  deed,  and  then  endeavored  to  escape  the 
consequences  by  charging  it  to  the  laws  of  the  empire,  which, 
if  he  had  been  a  temporal  prince  in  Rome,  as  is  now  assert- 
ed, he  could  have  executed  or  suspended  at  his  pleasure.  (") 

(^)  Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  86. 

C^^)  The  letter  of  this  great  pope,  approving  the  infliction  of  the  death  pen- 
alty upon  Priscillian,  is  referred  to  by  three  Roman  Catholic  historians.  It 
is  here  given,  that  the  reader  may  see  the  sentiments  of  the  papacy,  expressed 
by  one  of  the  greatest  of  the  infallible  (!)  popes,  in  refeience  to  the  best 
method  of  disposing  of  heretics  ! 

According  to  Cormenin,  it  was  thus  :  "  My  lord,  the  rigor  and  severity  of 
yom*  justice  against  this  heretic  and  his  disciples  have  been  of  great  aid  to  the 
clemency  of  the  Church,  We  have  heretofore  been  content  with  the  mildness 
of  the  judgments  which  the  bishops  delivered  in  accordance  with  the  canons, 
and  we  did  not  desire  bloody  executions ;  now,  however,  we  have  learned 
that  it  is  necessary  to  be  aided  and  sustained  by  the  severe  constitutions  of 
the  emperors  ;  for  the  fear  of  religious  punishment  frequently  makes  heretics 
recur  to  a  spiritual  remedy,  which  can  cure  their  souls  from  a  mortal  malady 
by  a  true  conversion." — Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  86. 

Maimbourg  represents  him  as  having  praised  the  Emperor  Maximus  for 
the  deed,  and  as  saying  : 

"That  the  rigor  and  severity  of  his  justice  against  that  heresiarch,  and 
his  disciples,  whom  this  prince  put  to  death,  were  a  great  assistance  to  the 
clemency  of  the  Church.  For  though  the  Church  contents  herself  with  that 
leniency  of  judgment,  which  the  bishops  exercise  according  to  the  canons, 
against  obstinate  heretics,  and  admits  of  no  bloody  executions,  it  is,  however, 
much  aided  and  supported  by  the  severe  constitutions  of  the  emperors,  since 
the  fear  of  so  rigorous  a  punishment  sometimes  makes  heretics  have  recourse 
to  the  spiritual  remedy,  to  cure  the  mortal  disease  of  their  heresy  by  a  sin- 
cere conversion." — Bayle,  vol.  iii.,  p.  758  (A). 

Du  Pin  says  that  Leo,  referring  to  the  Priscillianists,  said  : 


EXAMPLE  OF  POPE  FELIX  IL  271 

For  this  act  of  approval,  he  must  stand  at  the  bar  of  the 
nineteenth  century  equally  culpable  as  the  civil  authorities 
of  the  empire,  and  more  so  for  the  detestable  sentiments  in  • 
which  it  was  expressed.  But  tlie  fact  that  Priscillian  was 
executed  by  the  civil  authorities  settles,  beyond  all  contro- 
versy, that  Leo  L,  great  and  all-powerful  as  he  was  in  spir- 
itual affairs,  did  not  possess  any  temporal  power,  even  in 
Rome.  And  Archbishop  Kenrick  honestly  concedes  this 
when  he  says,  "Although  the  Bishop  of  Rome  was  not  yet 
a  temporal  prince,  yet  his  spiritual  power  was  surrounded 
with  so  great  secular  influence  that  he  almost  ranked  as  a 
prince ;"(")  manifestly,  because  of  his  high  personal  quali- 
ties, his  great  eloquence,  and  the  energy  of  his  will. 

Yet  the  archbishop,  immediately  after  making  this  conces- 
sion, would  have  it  to  be  implied  that  the  popes  did  possess 
some  temporal  power,  by  the  statement  of  the  fact  that,  in 
the  year  484,  Pope  Felix  II.  "complained  to  the  Emperor 
Zeno  that  the  laws  of  nations  had  been  violated  by  the  in- 
jurious treatment  of  his  legates."(")  But  this  proves  noth- 
ing to  the  purpose.  It  had  long  been  the  custom  of  the 
Christian  nations  to  receive  the  legates  of  the  pope,  and  to 
treat  them  with  that  degree  of  respect  to  which  the  Roman 
Church  was  entitled,  so  long  as  their  missions  were  confined 
to  spiritual  matters.     But  none  of  them  had  yet  been  so  re- 

"That  the  magistrates  themselves  have  had  so  great  an  hatred  for  that  de- 
testable sect,  that  they  have  used  the  severity  of  the  laws  against  them,  pun- 
ishing the  author  and  principal  abettors  with  death.  And  that  not  without 
reason,  because  they  saw  that  all  laws,  divine  and  human,  would  be  subvert- 
ed, and  the  civil  society  disturbed,  if  such  persons,  who  divulged  so  detestable 
errors,  were  suffered  to  live.  That  this  severity  had  been  used  a  long  time 
together  with  the  leniency  of  the  Church,  because  though  the  Church,  being 
contented  with  the  judgment  of  her  bishops,  avoids  all  sanguinary  punish- 
ments, yet  it  is  helped  by  the  edicts  of  princes,  which  cause  them  that  fear 
temporal  penalties  to  have  recourse  sometimes  to  spiritual  remedies." — Du 
Pin's  Eccl.  Hist.,  vol.  iv.,  p.  93. 

The  offense  of  Priscillian  was  that  he  adopted  the  doctrines  of  Manichaeus, 
who,  being  a  Persian,  sought  to  coalesce  the  doctrines  of  the  Persian  magi 
with  the  Christian  system.  His  execution  was  abhorred  by  the  bishops  of 
Gaul  and  Italy,  who,  unlike  the  pope,  "  had  not  yet  learned  that  giving  over 
heretics  to  be  punished  by  the  magistrates  was  either  an  act  of  piety  or  jus- 
tice."— Maclaine's  Mosheivis  Eccl.  Hist.,  vol.  i.,  p.  129. 

O  Kenrick,  part  ii.,  ch.  i.,  p.  257.  C)  ^^id. 


272  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

duced  to  obedience  as  to  submit,  without  murmur,  to  the 
direct  interference  of  the  pope,  either  by  legates  or  other- 
wise, with  their  secular  affairs.  Even  in  Spain,  which  was 
more  under  the  influence  of  the  pope  than  any  other  na- 
tion, his  authority  was  restricted  to  matters  concerning  the 
Church.  The  relations  between  the  Emperor  Zeno  and  Pope 
Felix  11.  were  those  of  sovereign  and  subject.  During  the 
pontificate  of  Simplicius  —  immediately  preceding  that  of 
Felix — Zeno  became  emperor,  upon  the  death  of  the  Em- 
peror Leo.  But  a  revolt  was  stirred  up  against  him  by 
Basilicus,  who  succeeded  in  driving  him  from  the  throne 
and  taking  possession  of  it.  He  expelled  the  orthodox  and 
put  heterodox  prelates  into  their  places,  in  which  he  was  re- 
sisted by  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople.  Pope  Simplicius 
approved  the  course  of  the  patriarch  at  first ;  but  afterward, 
with  the  hope  of  excluding  Timotheus  from  the  see  of  Alex- 
andria on  account  of  the  rivalry  between  them,  he  advised 
him  to  resist  Zeno,  the  legitimate  emperor,  and  support  the 
cause  of  Basilicus,  the  heretical  usurper,  thus  giving  his 
official  support  to  heresy,  and  his  sanction  to  an  act  of  open 
revolt  against  the  throne !  The  patriarch  followed  his  ad- 
vice to  the  extent  of  making  war  upon  the  supporters  of 
Timotheus,  and  the  empire  was  thrown  into  such  commotion 
that  Zeno  was  enabled  with  his  army  to  retake  possession 
of  the  throne  by  the  expulsion  of  Basilicus.  This  embar- 
rassed the  pope  for  a  time;  but,  with  true  papal  adroitness, 
he  endeavored  to  restore  himself  to  the  good  opinion  of 
Zeno  by  taking  his  side.  He  had  no  conscientious  scruples 
about  changing  from  one  side  to  the  other,  provided  he  al- 
ways found  himself  in  concert  with  the  strongest  party. 
Zeno  was  not  at  all  averse  to  the  reconciliation,  because,  in 
the  confused  and  unsettled  condition  of  affairs,  he  needed 
the  assistance  of  the  pope  to  keep  the  empire  in  his  hands. 
And  an  incident  soon  transpired  showing  that  the  pope  did 
not  intend  to  forfeit  the  protection  of  the  emperor  by  any 
act  invading  the  imperial  jurisdiction.  Each  was  playing 
the  part  of  a  skillful  politician  ;  power,  and  nothing  else, 
being  the  stake  they  played  for.  Upon  the  death  of  Timo- 
theus, the  priests  of  Alexandria  elected  his  successor,  with- 
out consulting  either  the  emperor  or  the  pope ;  the  latter  at 


EXAMPLE  OF  POPE  SIMPLICIUS.  273 

that  time,  as  Bishop  of  Rome,  having  no  recognized  juris- 
diction over  the  Church  at  Alexandria.  Zeno,  incensed  at 
this  election,  expelled  the  new  bishop  from  his  see,  wlio  in 
revenge  appealed  to  Pope  Siraplicius,  hoping  to  obtain  his 
intervention  in  his  favor.  Probably  the  pope,  in  order  to 
increase  his  own  importance  and  authority,  might  have  de- 
cided the  appeal,  but  he  was  given  to  understand  by  the 
emperor  that  it  was  an  aifair  beyond  his  jurisdiction,  and  he 
submitted  to  the  necessity  of  non-interference,  and  left  the 
emperor  to  have  his  own  way,  even  upon  this  ecclesiastic- 
al matter,  of  so  much  importance  as  the  appointment  of  a 
bishop  over  the  Alexandrian  Christians.  At  the  commence- 
ment of  the  pontificate  of  Felix  II.  this  expelled  bishop  was 
at  Rome,  and  so  played  upon  tlie  prejudices  of  the  pope 
against  Constantinople  as  to  induce  him  to  send  legates  to 
the  emperor  to  protest  against  the  protection  given  to  her- 
etics there.  These  legates,  being  engaged  in  what  Zeno 
considered  an  insolent  mission,  were  arrested  by  his  orders, 
thrown  into  prison,  and  threatened  with  death.  But  they 
had  an  equal  appreciation  with  the  pope  of  the  advantages 
of  being  on  the  strong  side,  and  obtained  their  freedom  by 
recognizing  as  the  legitimate  Bishop  of  Alexandria  the  her- 
etic against  whom  Pope  Felix  had  i3rotested.  When  they 
returned  to  Rome,  they  were  deposed  and  excommunicated. 
Failing  tlien  to  bring  the  Patriarcli  of  Constantinople  over 
to  his  side,  Pope  Felix  issued  a  bull  of  excommunication 
against  him,  and  addressed  to  the  emperor  the  letter  men- 
tioned by  Archbishop  Kenrick,  complaining  of  the  treat- 
ment of  liis  legates.  All  this  was  done  by  virtue  of  his 
spiritual  authority  alone.  But  even  in  that  aspect  of  it, 
nothing  was  accomplished  by  it,  for  all  his  pretensions  were 
treated  with  scorn  by  the  emperor,  with  wliom  he  had  no 
inclination  to  come  into  direct  collision.  Altliough  he  had 
much  to  be  proud  of,  and  exercised  plenary  jDowers  in  all 
the  ecclesiastic  affairs  at  Rome;  whenever  he  came  in  con- 
flict with  the  emperor,  even  in  reference  to  the  domestic  af- 
fairs of  that  city,  he  was  reduced  to  the  condition  of  a  sub- 
ject, and  laid  no  claim  to  any  temporal  power  whatever. 
And  thus  it  is  certain  that  at  the  close  of  the  pontificate  of 
Felix  II.,  in  the  year  492,  the  Pope  of  Rome  neither  had, 

18 


274  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

nor  claimed  to  have,  any  temporal  po^ver,  as  a  part  of  "  the 
patrimony  of  Peter,"  or  derived  in  any  other  way.  He  was 
a  mere  bishop,  like  the  bishops  of  Alexandria,  Corinth,  and 
other  places,  and  his  powers  were  limited  to  the  adminis- 
tration of  spiritual  affairs.  In  temporal  mattei-s  he  was  as 
much  subject  to  the  emperor  and  the  laws  of  the  empire 
as  any  of  the  inferior  clergy  or  the  people.  The  struggle, 
however,  for  the  acquisition  of  temporal  power  went  on  all 
the  time,  with  results  varying  according  to  circumstances. 
The  strong  popes  gained  upon  the  weak  emperors;  but 
when  the  latter  were  courageous  enough  to  assert  and 
maintain  the  authority  of  the  empire,  the  papacy  was 
dwarfed  into  the  narrowest  proportions.  The  Church,  in 
the  mean  time,  was  left  to*  drift  along  into  whatsoever  cur- 
rents the  interest  and  ambition  of  the  contending  factions 
carried  it,  and  the  cause  of  genuine  Christianity  was  made 
subordinate  to  political  rivalries,  and  would  have  expired  if 
God  had  not  preserved,  even  in  Rome,  faithful  guardians  to 
Shelter  and  preserve  it. 

The  century  which  elapsed  between  tlie  pontificate  of  Fe- 
lix II.  and  that  of  Gregory  I. — embracing  the  reigns  of  fif- 
teen popes — contributed  but  little  toward  conferring  tem- 
poral power  upon  the  Bishop  of  Rome.  The  emperors  con- 
tinued to  maintain  their  ascendency,  although  the  angry  con- 
troversies between  the  Eastern  and  Western  Christians  kept 
up  a  perpetual  strife  between  Rome  and  Constantinople,  in 
which  some  of  the  popes  proved  themselves  the  superioi's  of 
the  emperors  in  the  management  of  public  affairs.  There 
was  no  relaxation  of  their  efforts  to  consummate  the  policy 
of  Pope  Leo  I.  by  bringing  all  the  existing  governments 
into  subjection  to  the  papacy.  On  the  contrary,  this  be- 
came a  ruling  and  controlling  passion,  which  never  under- 
went abatement,  except  w^hen  policy  and  expediency  dic- 
tated it,  and  then  only  to  make  the  final  triumph  more  sure. 
In  the  year  498,  two  popes  were  elected — one  at  Constanti- 
nople, and  the  other  at  Rome.  Neither  being  disposed  to 
give  up  his  pretensions,  it  was  submitted  to  the  judgment 
of  King  Theodoric,  at  Ravenna,  to  decide  between  them('°) 

C°)  Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  97. 


CORRLTTIOX  OF  THE  POPES.  275 

— a  fact  which  proves  that  worldly  i3olicy,far  more  than  the 
influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  was  allowed  to  settle  the  im- 
portant questior!  as  to  who  should  be  the  successor  of  Peter 
and  God's  JV^icar  on  earth  !  Pope  Symmachus,  in  whose  fa- 
Yor  the  king  decided,  while  he  made  no  claim  of  temporal 
power  as  against  the  emperor,  did  assert  a  spiritual  jurisdic- 
tion over  the  world  ;  which,  if  it  had  been  conceded  to  him, 
would  have  absorbed  the  temporal  power.  He  told  the  Em- 
peror Anastasius  that  he  w^as  superior  to  all  the  princes  of 
earth,  because  they  governed  human  affairs,  while  he  dis- 
posed of  the  goods  of  heaven  ;'\'')  a  pretense  precisely  like 
that  now  set  up  by  Pope  Pius  IX.,  that  the  ecclesiastical, 
being  above  the  temporal  and  civil  authority,  has  the  divine 
right  to  dictate  its  policy  and  govern  the  world ! 

By  the  year  529,  priestly  ambition  had  become  almost 
universal,  and,  as  a  natural  consequence,  popes  were  elected 
by  intrigue  and  the  most  corrupt  means.  In  that  year  Bon- 
iface II.  was  elected  by  one  party,  and  a  rival  pope  by  an- 
other party,  at  Rome.  But  Boniface  triumphed  over  his 
rival,  and  had  the  satisfaction  of  anathematizing  him  after 
death  had  removed  him  out  of  the  way.  To  prevent  the 
recurrence  of  such  an  event,  he  convened  a  council  in  the 
Church  of  St.  Peter  at  Rome,  and  had  a  decree  passed  allow- 
ing him  to  designate  his  successor!  Having  secured  this 
extraordinary  power,  in  violation  of  the  universal  practice 
of  the  Church,he  appointed  one  whom  he  required  the  bish- 
ops to  recognize  "  by  oath  and  in  writing  !"  This  was,  of 
course,  infallibly  done  — without  the  possibility  of  error! 
But  another  council  was  soon  after  convened,  and  this  de- 
cree was  set  aside,  when  Boniface  cast  his  own  infallible  (!) 
bull  into  the  flames.  ('')  At  his  death,  "  the  Holy  See,  being 
set  up  at  auction,"  was  obtained  by  John  II.,  who  "paz'c? 
enormous  sums  to  his  com2Mitors,  and  obtained  the  pontifical 
tiara:' ('')  The  senators,  who  then  had  a  voice  in  the  elec- 
tion, sold  their  votes  openly,  and  the  general  corruption  w^as 
shameless  and  disgusting.  So  little  respect  had  one  pope 
for  another,  that  Pope  Agapetus,  the  successor  of  Felix  II., 
burned  in  public  the  bull  of  anathema  which  Pope  Boniface 


C)  Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  97.  C)  Ibid.  Q^)  Ibid. 


276  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

had  published  against  his  rival;  and  thus  one  infallible  pope 
condemned  another!  Pope  Agapetus  was  not  much  influ- 
enced by  the  prevailing  ambition,  and  was  disposed,  both 
by  precept  and  example,  to  arrest  the  evils  of  the  times. 
He  submitted,  as  a  dutiful  subject,  to  the  Emperor  Justinian 
in  temporal  affairs,  and  to  the  councils  of  the  Church  in 
spiritual,  seemingly  endowed  with  a  commendable  degree 
of  Christian  humility.  On  account  of  this,  he  never  reach- 
ed, on  the  records  of  church  history,  a  higher  eminence  than 
to  be  known  as  a  man  of  sincerity  and  of  more  integrity 
than  most  of  the  popes  of  that  age.  At  his  death  the  scenes 
attending  the  election  of  his  successor  were  disgracefully 
corrupt.  Says  Cormeniu:  "Priests  sold  their  suffrages;  ca- 
bals struggled,  raised  upon  their  competitors,  and  carried 
off  the  i>artisans  of  their  adversaries;  and  at  length  victory 
remained  with  the  richest,  the  most  skillful,  or  the  most 
corrupt."(^*)  This  same  author  also  says  that  Silverius 
bought  the  pontificate  from  King  Theodatus;(^^)  but  Du 
Pin,  while  admitting  that  Anastasius  affirmed  this  to  be  true, 
is  disposed  to  doubt  it,  and  to  follow  Liberatus,  "  an  author 
more  ancient  and  more  credible  than  Anastasius,"  who  sup- 
posed that  the  election  of  Silverius  was  regular  and  canon- 
ical. ('^)  Be  this  as  it  may,  it  is  unquestionably  true  that 
Theodatus  desired  to  secure  a  pope  devoted  to  his  interest, 
that  he  might  the  more  readily  prevent  Belisarius  from 
marching  his  army  upon  Rom.e;  and  whether  he  sold  the 
pontificate  to  Silverius  or  he  was  canonically  elected,  it  can 
not  be  doubted  that  the  king  assented  to  it  with  the  under- 
standing that  he  should  have  the  assistance  of  the  pope. 
But  Belisarius  entered  Rome  with  an  army  of  one  hundred 
and  fifty  thousand  Goths,  and  Silverius  either  did  or  "  was 
suspected  to  hold  correspondence"  with  him;  thus  betray- 
ing the  king  and  turning  over  the  city  to  these  terrible  ene- 
mies. (") 

If  Belisarius  thus  enjoyed  the  fruits  of  the  pope's  treason, 
he  was  not  disposed  to  leave  the  traitor  unpunished.  He 
therefore  deposed  Silverius,  and  elevated  Vigilius   to   the 

(^)  Cormenin,  vol.  i. ,  p.  11 0.  C)  Ibid. 

C)  r>u  Pin,  vol.  v.,  p.  4G.  C)  If^id. 


POPE  VIGILIUS  NEVER  ELECTED.  211 

pontificate.  This  infallible  pope  caused  the  deposed  but 
equally  infallible  Silverius  to  be  banished  to  a  desert  isl- 
and, under  charge  of  executioners,  who  put  him  to  death  by 
the  slow  process  of  starvation  !('')  Yet,  notwithstanding  all 
tliis,  Vigilius  was  recognized  by  a  General  Council  and  "  ac- 
knowledged for  a  lawful  pope,"  says  Du  Pin,  "  without  pro- 
ceeding to  a  new  election,  or  even  confirming  that  which  had 
been  made.('')  His  name,  as  also  that  of  Silverius,  who  has 
been  made  a  saint— is  found  in  every  published  list  of  the 
popes ;  and,  strange  as  it  may  now  seem,  one  of  the  ecu- 
menical councils  of  the  Church— the  second  of  Constantino- 
ple— was  held  under  his  pontificate,  and  received  all  its  au- 
thority and  validity  from  his  ofiicial  approval,  as  the  infalli- 
ble successor  of  Peter !(")  He  was  made  pope  November 
2.0th,  537,  and  the  death  of  Silverius  did  not  occur  until 
June  20th,  538.  Yet  Butler  says  :  "  Vigilius  was  an  ambi- 
tious intruder,  and  a  schismatic,  as  long  as  St.  Silverius 
lived ;  but  after  his  death  became  lawful  pope  by  the  ratifi- 
cation or  consent  of  the  Roman  Church,  and  from  that  time 
renounced  the  errors  and  commerce  of  the  heretics,"(*^)  a 
method  of  covering  up  the  heresy  and  tergiversations  of  a 
pope  neither  ingenious  nor  plausible.  His  fierce  contest  with 
the  Emperor  Justinian  about  the  Three  Chapters  led  to  his 

C*")  T>n  Pin,  vol.  v.,  p.  47.  .  C)  I^^d- 

(^°)  The  history  of  this  General  Council  and  of  the  pontificate  of  Vigilius 
is  most  instructive  to  the  student  of  ecclesiastical  history.  The  chief  points 
of  controversy  in  the  Church,  at  that  time,  arose  out  of  what  were  called 
"The  Three  Chapters,"  that  is,  the  Nestorian  heresy  contained  in  the  writings 
of  Theodoret,  Bishop  of  Cyrus — a  letter  of  Ibas,  Bishop  of  Edessa,  and  the 
works  of  Theodore,  Bishop  of  Mopsuesta.  These  were  condemned  b}-  the 
Emperor  Justinian  ;  but  Pope  Vigilius  rejected  his  edict  and  excommuni- 
cated Theodorus  of  Cesarea,  its  author.  The  council  was  convened  to  settle 
the  controversy.  It  condemned  "  The  Three  Chapters,"  but  not  their  authors, 
having  decided  "that  the  works  of  an  author  could  be  justly  censured  with- 
out condemning  him  personally!"  Vigilius  refused,  at  first,  to  approve  this 
condemnation,  and  was  banished.  "Nevertheless,"  says  Du  Pin,  "riot  be- 
ing guided  by  zeal  for  the  truth,  but  by  his  own  caprice  or  interest,  he  quick- 
ly condemned  them  after  an  authentic  manner,  that  he  might  return  into 
Italy." — History  of  the  Catholic  Church,  by  Noethen,  p.  265;  Lives  of  the 
Saints,  by  Butler,  vols,  iv.,  v.,  vi.,  p.  G08 ;  Ecclesiastical  History,  by  Du  Pin, 
vol.  v.,  p.  47.  For  history  of  this  council,  see  Du  Pin,  vol.  v.,  p.  135. 
(*')  Butler's  "  Lives  of  the  Saints,"  vols,  iv.,  v.,  vi.,  p.  608. 


278  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

being  summoned  to  Gonstantinople  by  the  emperor,  when 
he  was  arrested  and  held  in  custody.  On  his  return  to 
Rome  after  his  release,  he  died,  as  some  liave  supposed,  by 
poison;  when  Pelagius  I.,  by  order  of  Justinian,  and  without 
waiting  for  the  formality  of  an  election,  clothed  himself  with 
the  pontifical  mantle  and  declared  himself  pope  !  When  he 
reached  Rome,  the  clergy  and  people  refused  to  recognize 
him,  and  charged  him  with  the  murder  of  Vigilius.  With 
the  assistance,  however,  of  the  temporal  authority  of  the 
emperor,  he  maintained  himself  on  the  chair  of  Peter  for 
nearly  four  years.  This  combination  of  facts  gives  but  little 
support  to  the  pretense  that  popes  are  always  elected  by  the 
inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  still  less  to  the  doctrine 
of  papal  infallibility  and  temporal  power. 

In  the  year  566,  two  bishops  of  Burgundy  were  convict- 
eel,  by  a  provincial  synod,  of  adultery,  rape,  and  murder,  and 
were  expelled  from  their  sees.  They  appealed  to  Pope 
John  III.,  as  spiritual  head  of  the  Roman  Church,  and  he 
restored  them.(*^)  Such  examples  could  not  do  otherwise 
than  lead  to  many  abuses  and  extortions,  as  well  as  to 
great  assumption  of  pontifical  authority.  The  latter  was 
carried  to  such  an  extent,  that  some  of  the  popes  declared 
themselves  the  dispensers  of  a  fourth  part  of  the  property 
of  the  Church,  in  order  that  thereby  they  might  become 
the  distributors  of  large  rewards  to  tlieir  dependents  and 
friends.  By  these  means  they  were  so  rapidly  becoming 
the  rivals  of  princes,  that  the  latter  resolved  upon  resisting, 
with  more  firmness,  their  efforts  to  acquire  absolute  inde- 
pendence and  superiority.  The  emperor,  therefore,  decreed 
that  his  consent  should  be  necessary  to  the  valid  elections 
of  the  bishops  of  Rome,  Ravenna,  and  Milan.  This  decree 
was  in  force  at  the  election  of  Pope  Gregory  I.,  in  the  year 
590.  Gregory — from  humility,  it  is  said — wrote  to  the  em- 
peror to  induce  him  not  to  confirm  his  election;  a  circum- 
stance which  excludes  all  possibility  of  there  having  been 
any  temporal  power  possessed  by  the  popes  up  to  the  close 
of  the  sixth  century.  The  popes,  unquestionably,  struggled 
hard  to  acquire  it,  but  without  success.    Their  ambition  was 

(")  Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  120. 


PAPAL  DEGEXEKACY.  279 

unbouiidecl ;  and  sucli  was  the  cliaracter  of  the  most  of 
them  that  tliey  would  have  adopted  any  means  to  ob- 
tain their  end ;  yet  they  were  held  in  inferiority  by  the 
strength  of  the  imperial  power,  and  compelled  to  remain 
subjects.  By  their  machinations,  and  the  perpetual  schisms 
they  engendered,  they  succeeded,  in  the  end,  in  sundering 
all  the  bonds  of  affection  and  alliance  between  the  Eastern 
and  the  Western  Christians.  They  liad  to  await  the  rise 
of  more  powerful  allies  in  the  West — of  Pepin  and  Charle- 
magne— before  they  could  break  the  ties  of  their  allegiance 
to  the  empire.  But  they  succeeded  in  this  also,  by  the  in- 
fliction of  terrible  blows  upon  the  true  prosperity  of  the 
Church.  If  the  peaceful  diifusion  of  the  Gospel  had  been 
their  sole  object,  and  the  Christian  spirit  of  charity  and  tol- 
eration had  occupied  their  minds,  their  personal  struggles 
with  each  other,  and  their  numerous  controversies  about 
heresy,  would  have  been  attended  with  far  less  disastrous 
results,  and  would  not  have  given  rise  to  so  much  cruelty 
and  persecution.  But  other  and  more  unworthy  motives^ 
prevailed,  temporal  ambition  took  the  place  of  the  liigher 
Christian  virtues,  and  whatever  they  did  was  centred  in  the 
groveling  object  of  acquiring  eartldy  power.  The  govern- 
ment of  the  world  became  the  great  prize  for  which  the 
combatants  contended,  on  both  sides,  and  the  cause  of 
Christianity  was  only  saved  from  final  and  complete  over- 
throw by  the  sheltering  protection  of  Providence,  and  the 
courage  of  the  few  pious  and  devoted  men,  who,  in  spite  of 
all  the  prevailing  corruption,  preserved  their  own  Christian 
integrity  and  the  teachings  of  the  apostolic  fathers. 


280  TIIE  TxYPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  TOWER. 


CHAPTER  X. 

Clinrches  Independent  before  Consti\ntine. — Victor  I.  endeavored  to  establish 
the  Supremacy  of  Rome. — Ambition  of  the  Topes. — Aided  Constantino  to 
overthrow  Maxentius. — Consequences. — Constantino  a  Usurper. — Maxen- 
tius  the  Lawful  Emperor. — Constantino  baptized  just  before  his  Death. — 
His  Motives. — Influence  upon  Roman  Clergy. — Arianism. — The  Council 
of  Nice. — The  Pope  had  Nothing  to  do  with  It. — Called  by  the  Emperor. — 
The  Tope  did  not  preside  by  his  Legates. — He  did  not  approve  the  De- 
crees as  Necessary  to  their  Validity. — Constantino  was  the  Master  Spirit. — 
He  dictated  the  Creed. — He  fixed  Infallibility  in  the  Council. — The  Coun- 
cil did  not  decree  the  Primacy  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome. — It  enacted  only 
Twenty  Canons. — All  other  pretended  Ones  are  Forgeries. 

The  many  scliisms  which  have  occuitgcI  in  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  and  the  frequent  elections  of  rival  and  hos- 
tile popes,  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  there  is  something  in- 
herent in  the  papal  system  which  renders  entire  unity  im- 
possible. As  all  minds  of  any  intelligence  naturally  repel 
anyattack  upon  their  independence,  the  harshness  and  sever- 
ity employed  by  the  popes  to  keep  this  class  of  minds  in  sub- 
jection have  necessarily  induced  antagonisms.  The  igno- 
rant alone,  outside  the  governing  class,  have  proved  submis- 
sive ;  and  they  only  because  they  are  unconscious  of  their 
inferiority.  These,  for  many  centuries,  constituted  the  mer- 
cenary armies  of  the  papacy. 

There  is  no  difficulty  in  tracing  this  want  of  unity  to  its 
real  source,  or  in  showing  that,  but  for  the  disturbance  of 
Christian  harmony  in  the  Church  by  such  popes  as  sub- 
ordinated the  interests  of  Christianity  to  the  accomplish- 
ment of  their  own  personal  ends,  Roman  Catholicism  might 
have  been,  to-day,  a  very  different  thing  from  what  it  is.  It 
might  have  been  one  of  the  most  powerful  and  effective  in- 
struments in  carrying  on  the  work  of  improving  and  eleva- 
ting the  world.  And  the  present  pope,  instead  of  sending 
forth  mingled  curses  and  groans  from  a  pretended  prison, 
might  have  united  in  the  general  rejoicing  at  the  advanced 


INDEPENDENCE  OF  THE  Ex\RLY  CHURCHES.  281 

condition  into  wliicli  modern  Christianity  and  civilization 
have  brought  the  nations. 

The  Church  of  Christ  was  undoubtedly  established  upon 
a  rock,  because  the  faith  upon  Avhich  it  rested  was  designed 
to  be  more  immovable  than  the  mountains.  Love,  charity, 
harmony,  and  all  the  heavenly  virtues  clustered  together  at 
its  foundation,  and  there  can  be  nothing  rightfully  about  it 
to  destroy  its  symmetry  or  mar  its  beauty.  But  the  papal 
system  is  constructed  out  of  uncongenial  and  inharmonious 
materials.  It  was  the  work  of  man — not  God.  Erected  out 
of  beautiful  materials  gathered  from  the  partial  wreck  of 
apostolic  Christianity,  by  mingling  them  with  the  rude 
fragments  of  pagan  Rome,  it  lacks  the  symmetry  of  a  per- 
fect plan,  and  displays  the  conflicting  designs  of  its  various 
architects.  Its  external  orsranization  has  2:rown  out  of  illib- 
eral  and  unchristian  divisions,  fomented  by  designing  popes 
and  prelates,  wath  no  higher  object  than  to  gain  authority 
and  distinction  for  themselves,  even  at  the  sacrifice  of  the 
simple  faith  and  worship  of  the  early  Christians.  Its  own 
factions  have  never  ceased  to  prey  upon  its  vitals  from  the 
hour  of  its  birth,  and  have  been  to  each  other  what  the 
plagues  sent  down  from  the  gods  were  to  those  who  first 
stole  fire  from  heaven.  It  has  made  fierce  and  cruel  war 
upon  every  thing  that  stood  in  its  path  or  endeavored  to 
check  its  ambition ;  and  if,  at  any  time,  it  has  been  met  by 
intolerance,  the  weapons  used  against  it  have  been  supplied 
from  its  own  armory,  and  belong  to  the  brood  of  monsters 
which  itself  has  hatched. 

Before  the  time  of  Constantino,  each  of  the  several  church- 
es planted  by  the  apostles  and  the  early  fathers  exercised  its 
own  jurisdiction  over  its  own  members,  and  thus  preserved 
harmony  in  faith  and  worship.  The  right  of  visitorial  guard- 
ianship, exercised  by  the  apostles  while  planting  and  water- 
ing them  in  infancy,  existed  no  longer,  because  there  was  no 
longer  any  necessity  for  it.  But  while  each  church  govern- 
ed its  own  aflTairs,  they  all  realized  the  necessity  of  preserv- 
ing a  spirit  of  unity,  and  such  brotherhood  and  fellowship 
among  the  whole  as  would  enable  them  to  sympathize  with 
and  assist  each  other  in  the  adjustment  of  their  local  dis- 
agreements, if  any  should  arise.     A  harmonious  and  beauti- 


282  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

ful  Christian  system  was  thus  created,  worthy  of  the  di- 
vine approval,  and  under  it  the  Catholic  Apostolic  Church 
was  able  to  stand  up  and  ward  off  the  staggering  blows  of 
the  pagan  emperors. 

The  first  efforts  to  disturb  this  harmony  were  made  by  the 
bishops  of  Rome.  About  the  beginning  of  the  third  century, 
Victor  I,  with  a  view  to  establish  the  primacy  of  the  Church 
of  Rome,  endeavored  to  compel  the  Asiatic  churches,  by 
threats  of  excommunication,  to  conform  to  its  custom  in 
keeping  the  festival  of  Easter.  About  half  a  century  after- 
ward, Stephen  I.  attempted  to  assume  jurisdiction  over  the 
Church  of  Spain;  and,  still  later,  Dionysius  made  a  like  at- 
tempt over  the  Church  of  Alexandria.  These  attempts  at 
ecclesiastical  absolutism  at  Rome  were  so  sternly  rebuked 
by  the  great  lathers,  Irenaus  and  Cyprian,  as  to  demon- 
strate that  the  leading  churches  could  not  be  subjugated, 
unless  by  some  power  they  were  unable  to  resist.  The  bish- 
ops of  Rome  soon  saw  that  this  power  was  political  impe- 
rialism; and  they  availed  themselves  of  the  first  opportunity 
of  uniting  Church  and  State  at  Rome,  in  order  to  obtain  pos- 
session of  it.  This  opportunity  was  the  arrival  of  Constan- 
tine,  at  a  time  when  the  corruj^t  materials  necessary  for  such 
a  union  were  abundant  at  Rome.  Eusebius,  who  was  a  prel- 
ate of  eminence  at  that  time,  gives  this  account  of  the  clergy: 

"  But  when,  by  reason  of  excessive  liberty,  we  sunk  into 
negligence  and  sloth,  one  envying  and  reviling  another  in 
different  ways,  and  we  were  almost,  as  it  were,  on  the  point 
of  taking  up  arms  against  each  other,  and  we  were  assailing 
each  other  with  words  as  with  darts  and  spears,  prelates  in- 
veighing against  prelates,  and  people  rising  up  against  peo- 
ple, and  hypocrisy  and  dissimulation  had  arisen  to  the  great- 
est height  of  malignity,  then  the  divine  judgment. . .  .began 

to  afflict  its  episcopacy But  some  that  appeared  to  be 

our  pastors,  deserting  the  law  of  piety,  were  inflamed  against 
each  other  with  mutual  strifes,  only  accumulating  quarrels 
and  threats,  rivalship,  hostility  and  hatred  to  each  other, 
only  anxious  to  assert  the  government  as  a  kind  oi  sovereign- 
ty for  themselves.^'' {^) 

(')  "Eccl.  Hist.,"  by  Eusebius,  bk.  viii.,  ch.  i. 


FIRST  UNION  or  CHURCH  AND  STATE.  283 

It  has  even  been  charged  that  Marcelliniis,  who  was  Bish- 
op) of  Rome  in  304,  shortly  before  the  arrival  of  Constantine, 
"solemnly  abjured  the  Christian  religion"  and  "offered  in- 
cense to  idols  in  the  temples  of  Isis  and  Vesta."f)  However 
this  may  be,  it  is  not  at  all  wonderful,  in  view  of  the  condi- 
tion of  things  pictured  by  Eusebius,  that  when  Milchiades,  a 
few  years  after,  became  Bishop  of  Rome,  he  was  willing  that 
the  reigning  emperor  should  be  removed  and  the  empire 
seized  by  Constantine,  in  order  thereby  to  unite  his  fortunes 
with  the  State,  and  those  of  the  State  with  the  Roman 
Church.  Constantine  was  not  a  member  of  the  Church — 
then  the  only  visible  sign  of  Christianity ;  but  the  bishop 
and  clergy  of  Rome  assisted  him  to  expel  Maxentius,  the 
reigning  emperor,  expecting  to  receive  —  if  not  upon  the 
express  condition  that  they  should  receive — the  direct  favor 
and  protection  of  the  empire.  With  the  emperor  on  their 
side,  they  could  readily  see  how  easy  it  would  be  to  draw 
all  the  religious^controversies  throughout  the  empire  to 
Rome,  and  thus  lay  the  foundation  for  the  supremacy  of  the 
Church  there.  But,  even  without  this,  their  rebellion  against 
Maxentius(^)  was  followed  with  results  both  direct  and  con- 
sequential. The  direct  were :  the  union  of  Church  and  State, 
the  introduction  of  secular  affairs  into  the  Church,  the  in- 
crease of  ambition  and  corruption  among  the  clergy,  and  the 
planting  of  the  foundations  upon  which  the  monstrous  usur- 
pations of  the  papacy  have  since  rested.  The  consequential 
w^ere  :  the  introduction  of  measures  Avhich  overthrew  the 
primitive  Church,  the  spreading  of  discord,  jealousy,  and  di- 
visions throughout  all  the  churches,  and,  finally,  the  great 
schism  which  separated  the  Eastern  and  Western  Christians. 

It  is  worthy  to  be  repeated  that,  before  the  time  of  Con- 
stantine, each  of  the  churches  of  Asia,  Africa,  and  Europe 
liad  enjoyed  its  own  independence,  with  no  asserted  or  rec- 
ognized principality  in  either  over  the  others.  Rome  had 
no  more  power  than  Alexandria,  or  Alexandria  than  Anti- 
och,  or  Antioch  than  Jerusalem.     As  the  most  ancient  and 

C)  Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  48. 

(^)  Maxentius  persecuted  the  Christians,  but  was  the  legitimate  emperor; 
and,  therefore,  if  Constantine  had  failed,  all  who  assisted  him  would  have 
been  rebels  against  the  law  of  the  empire. 


284  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

first -established  churches,  those  of  Jerusalem  and  Antioch 
had  a  sort  of  precedence  of  honor,  derived  from  the  associa- 
tion of  the  names  of  the  apostles  James  (the  Lord's  brother) 
and  Peter  and  Paul,  with  their  history.  But  in  neither  of 
them  had  there  been  any  pretense  of  authority  or  primacy 
set  up.  They  were  content  to  adhere,  in  what  they  did  and 
taught,  to  the  practice  of  that  forbearance,  charity,  and  tol- 
eration exhibited  in  the  apostolic  assembly  at  Jerusalem,  by 
which  they  hoped  to  lead  the  world  into  that  condition  of 
meekness  and  humilit}^  which  is  experienced  at  the  genuine 
impress  of  true  Christianity  upon  the  heart,  whether  it  be 
that  of  prince  or  peasant.  Eusebius  giv^es  also  an  account 
of  the  rapid  progress  of  Christianity  under  these  influences. 
He  speaks  of  "  those  vast  collections  of  men  that  flocked  to 
the  religion  of  Christ,  and  those  multitudes  crowding  in 
from  every  city,  and  the  illustrious  concourse  in  the  houses 
of  worship." (")  Such  results  could  have  been  produced  only 
by  the  example  of  pious  and  holy  lives  on  the  part  of  the 
ministers  of  religion — of  such  lives  as  would  arrest  the  at- 
tention of  the  multitude,  and  j^rove  to  them  how  far  prefera- 
ble, and  how  much  more  ennobling  and  elevating,  was  prac- 
tical Christianity  than  any  of  the  old  philosophies.  The  re- 
verse of  this  flattering  picture,  which  he  likewise  painted, 
could  only  have  been  produced  by  other  examples  of  the 
very  opposite  character,  such  as  had  their  birth  in  the  pre- 
vailing pride  and  ambition  of  Rome. 

When  Constantino  reached  Rome— not  yet  being  a  Chris- 
tian, even  by  profession — he  manifestly  desired  to  secure  the 
co-operation  of  both  pagans  and  Christians,  in  order  to  main- 
tain possession  of  the  empire,  which  w^as  his  chief  desire. 
He  had  no  legal  claim  to  rule  in  Rome.  At  the  division  of 
the  empire  by  Diocletian,  he  selected  three  colleagues  to 
govern  it  jointly  with  himself — Maximian,  Galerius,  and 
Constantius,  the  father  of  Constantino.  None  of  these  had 
any  other  claim  to  the  title  of  Csosar  than  this.  The  dis- 
tribution of  the  empire  was  as  follows :  to  Constantius  were 
given  Gaul,  Spain,  and  Britain ;  to  Galerius,  the  valley  of 
the   Danube;  to  Maximian,  Italy  and  Africa;   and  Diocle- 

C)  Eusebius,  bk.  viii.,  ch.  i. 


CONSTANTINE  A  USUKPER.  285 

tian  retained  Thrace,  Egypt,  and  Asia.Q  Maxiraian,  there- 
fore, was  emperor  at  Rome.  At  his  death,  in  306,  Maxen- 
tius,  his  son,  became  his  successor,  by  the  act  of  "  the  ap- 
plauding senate  and  people,"('')  which  placed  him  lawfully 
in  possession  of  that  part  of  the  empire.  About  that  time, 
Constantius  died  in  Britain,  while  administering  his  part  of 
the  empire.  Q  Constantino  was  present,  and  upon  him  his 
father  "committed  the  administration  of  the  empire;"  upon 
the  principle  that,  being  his  eldest  son,  he  was  entitled  to  it 
by  the  law  of  inheritance.  C^) 

In  no  possible  view  of  this  act  can  it  be  said  to  have  con- 
ferred upon  Constantino  any  right  to  that  part  of  the  em- 
pire in  which  Rome  was  situated.  Giving  to  his  right  by 
inheritance,  or  gift  from  his  father,  the  utmost  extent,  his 
jurisdiction  as  emperor  was  confined  to  the  countries  over 
which  Constantius  ruled ;  that  is,  Gaul,  Spain,  and  Britain. 
He,  however,. was  not  content  with  this;  the  field  was  not 
large  enough  for  the  gratification  of  inordinate  ambition  like 
his.  Eusebius,  his  only  biographer,  tells  us  that  he  "drove 
from  his  dominions,  like  untamed  and  savage  beasts,"  those 
who  seemed  incapable  of  civilization  ;  "  reduced  to  submis- 
sion "  parts  of  Britain  ;  and  "  then  proceeded  to  consider  the 
state  of  the  remaining  portions  of  the  empire."  No  part  of 
it  attracted  his  attention  so  much  as  Rome,  "  the  imperial 
city,"  and  he  therefore  "prepared  himself  for  the  efiectual 
suppression  of  the  tyranny"  which  prevailed  there  under 
Maxentius;  that  is,  for  snatching  the  imperial  crown  from  the 
brow  of  Maxentius  and  putting  it  upon  his  own.C)  The 
pretense  that  he  desired  to  go  to  Rome  to  relieve  the  Chris- 
tians there  from  the  oppression  of  Maxentius  is  idle,  for  he 
was  not  yet  a  Christian.  He  desired  the  empire,  and  for 
that  purpose  alone  he  marched  his  army  to  Rome.  Upon 
reaching  there,  he  had  two  things  to  do  in  order  to  secure 
the  desired  success  :  first,  to  drive  out  Maxentius,  and,  sec- 
ond, to  conciliate  the  inhabitants.  The  first  accomplished, 
he  undertook  the  second  by  granting  equal  freedom  of  re- 

C)  "Decline  and  Fall, "etc.,  by  Gibbon  (Milman's),  vol.  i.,  pp.  406,  407. 
(«)  Ibid.,  p.  461.  C)  Ibid.,  p.  457. 

C)  "Life  of  Constantine,"by  Eusebius,  bk.  i.,  ch.  xxi.,  p.  21. 
O  Ibid.,  clih.  xxv.,  xxvi.,  pp.  23,  24. 


286  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

ligious  worship  to  both  Christians  and  pagans,  thereby  sig- 
nifying his  condemnation  of  religious  persecution.  This  was 
altogether  conformable  to  the  wishes  of  the  Christians,  for, 
np  to  that  period,  the  example  of  toleration  set  by  the  apos- 
tles and  early  Christians  had  been  universally  practiced  by 
them,  except  in  the  instances  where  the  bishops  of  Rome 
had  endeavored  to  establish  their  primacy  over  those  of  the 
other  churches. 

Thus  established  in  Rome,  Constantino  entered  immediate- 
ly upon  a  system  of  measures  by  means  of  which  the  clergy 
were  greatly  advanced,  as  a  reward  for  their  support  of  his 
cause.  He  conferred  great  favors  upon  them,  such  as  they 
had  never  before  enjoyed.  (^°)  Those  already  corrupted  by 
the  prevailing  disorders  of  which  Eusebius  speaks  were, 
beyond  all  doubt,  quite  ready  to  accept  this  arrangement, 
without  any  inquiry  beyond  the  mere  question  of  personal 
benefit  to  themselves;  and  as  these  had  control  of  the 
Church  at  Rome,  it  soon  resulted  in  uniting  the  Church  and 
the  State  together  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  one  dependent* 
on  the  other.  Even  then  he  had  not  become  a  Christian  by 
uniting  with  the  Church ;  nor  did  he  do  so  for  a  number 
of  years  after  the  Council  of  Nice.  Yet  he  convened  that 
council,  was  present  during  its  sessions,  participated  in  its 
deliberations,  and  dictated  its  decisions.  It  is  a  gross  per- 
version of  history  to  call  him  a  "Christian  emperor"  in  the 
sense  that  the  papists  continually  do,  for  none  of  the  fathers 
from  whom  we  derive  information  of  those  times  give  any 
account  of  his  baptism  into  the  Church  until  he  was  about  to 
die,  long  after  his  capture  of  Rome.  Socrates  says  that,  in 
the  sixty-fifth  year  of  his  age,  he  received  "  Christian  bap- 
tism," in  Nicomedia,  and  died  in  a  few  days.(^^)  Sozomen 
says  the  same  tking,  adding  that  it  w^as  in  the  thirty-fifth 
year  of  his  reign.  ('')  And  so  does  Theodoret.('')  And  also 
Eusebius.  (^^)  Eusebius  talks  about  God  having  frequently 
manifested  himself  to  him,  and  every  body  is  familiar  with 

C°)  Ante,  ch.  viii. 

(")  "Eccl.  Hist.,"  by  Socrates,  bk.  i.,  ch.  xxxix. 
(■^)  "Eccl.  Hist.,"  by  Sozomen,  bk.  ii.,  ch.  xxxiv. 
(")  "Eccl,  Hist.,"  by  Thcodoret,  bk.  i.,  ch.  xxxii. 
(")  "  Life  of  Constantine,"  by  Eusebius,  bk.  iv.,  ch.  Ixi. 


CONSTANTINE  NEVER  A  ROjIAN  CATHOLIC.  287 

his  story  about  the  sign  of  the  cross  in  the  heavens ;  and  it  is 
undoubtedly  true  that  he  had  great  respect  for  Christianity. 

But  all  this  does  not  go  to  show,  against  other  acknowl- 
edged facts,  that  he  had  become  so  connected  with  the 
Church  at  Rome  as  to  be  moved  by  motives  of  piety  alone 
to  bestow  so  many  royal  favors  upon  it.  The  fact  is,  he 
never  united  with  the  Church  of  Rome  at  all.  When  bap- 
tized in  Nicomedia,  the  ceremony  was  performed  by  Arian 
bishops  and  in  an  Arian  church  ;  so  that  he  never  was,  ac- 
cording to  the  teachings  of  the  Roman  Church,  an  orthodox 
Christian,  but  died,  as  he  had  lived,  a  heretic.  When  he  al- 
lied himself,  therefore,  with  the  clergy  at  Rome,  that  act 
must,  of  necessity,  be  referred  to  some  other  motive  than  the 
service  of  God,  or  the  special  advancement  of  Christianity. 
There  could  have  been  no  other  than  a  temporal  motive, 
that  of  securing  and  retaining  possession  of  the  imperial 
crown.  And  it  is  equally  conclusive  also,  that  the  clergy  of 
Rome  had  no  other  than  a  temporal  motive  in  forming  so 
close  and  intimate  alliance  with  a  prince  who  had  not  dem- 
onstrated his  devotion  to  Christianity  by  uniting  with  their 
Church  ;  which,  we  are  no\y  told  by  those  who  profess  to  be 
their  successors,  is  the  only  sure  passport  to  heaven.  Thus, 
the  union  formed  under  these  circumstances,  and  by  these 
contracting  parties,  between  the  Church  and  the  State  was, 
on  the  part  of  both,  a  mere  scheme  of  ambition,  designed  for 
no  other  purpose  than  to  acquire  power.  If  Christianity  had 
any  thing  to  do  with  it,  it  was  of  secondary  consideration. 

Understanding  perfectly  well  the  wishes  of  such  of  the 
clergy  as  had  brought  the  Church  into  the  condition  de- 
scribed by  Eusebius,  and  how  they  were  to  be  kept  faithful 
to  him,  one  of  the  first  steps  of  Constantino  was  to  issue  an 
edict  commanding  large  sums  of  money  to  be  paid  to  "cer- 
tain ministers."('°)  He  exempted  the  clergy  from  public 
service. (^*')  He  placed  the  Christians  "in  almost  all  the 
principal  posts  of  the  Roman  Government."(^^)  He  decreed 
that  part  of  the  funds  levied  from  tributary  countries  should 
bo  sent  "  to  the  bishops  and  clergy."(^^)     He  enacted  a  law 

('^)  "Eccl.  Hist., "by  Eusebius,  bk.  x.,  ch.  vi.         ('«)  Ibid.,  bk.  x.,  ch.  vii. 
(")  "Eccl.  Hist.," by  Sozomen,  bk.  i.,  ch.  viii.      Q^)  Ibid. 


university) 


288  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

giving  immunity  to  the  clergy  in  reference  to  taxation. (*'') 
Also  another  permitting  appeals  from  the  secular  courts  to 
the  bishops.  f°)  He  provided,  for  the  first  time,  that  persons 
should  be  allowed  to  leave  tjieir  property  to  the  Church  by 
will.f  ^)  Wlio  could  doubt  the  result  of  such  unbounded  fa- 
voritism as  this  ?  It  soon  raised  the  Church  at  Rome  to  an 
unparalleled  condition  of  grandeur.  The  clergy  became  a 
privileged  class,  sheltered  and  protected  as  they  thus  were 
by  the  emperor.  When  the  emperor  was  gone — for  he  re- 
mained there  but  a  little  while — they  did  as  they  pleased, 
for  every  body  understood  the  terrible  vengeance  in  store 
for  those  who  resisted.  The  compact  was  faithfully  executed 
by  both  parties,  to  the  temporal  profit  of  both. 

The  men  of  that  day  are  not  supposed  to  have  been  ma- 
terially difterent  from  those  of  the  present  times.  Hence 
the  splendor  and  magnificence  introduced  into  the  Roman 
Church  led  to  such  departures  from  the  simple  modes  of 
apostolic  worship  as  were  supposed  to  be  necessary  to  arrest 
the  attention  of  the  pagan  part  of  the  population,  and  to  at- 
tract them  to  that  Church.  Much  of  this  splendor  was,  in 
fact,  borrowed  from  the  pagan  Avorship — while  mucli  of  it 
originated  in  the  pride  and  vanity  of  the  clergy.  It  should 
not  surprise  us  now  to  know  that,  in  the  midst  of  such  a 
state  of  things  as  this,  the  bishops  struggled  with  each 
other  for  the  ascendency,  as  Eusebius  tells  us,  while,  at  the 
same  time,  they  were  thoroughly  united  in  the  wish  and 
purpose  to  make  the  Roman  Church  the  "mistress"  and 
ruler  of  all  the  other  churches.  Certainly  there  is  no  ex- 
ample of  such  struggles  and  contentions  found  in  the  lives 
of  the  apostles  ;  no  question  about  personal  or  ofiicial  su- 
premacy. Paul  rebuked  Peter  at  Antioch  for  his  course 
toward  the  Jews;  but  no  controversy  about  authority  grew 
out  of  it.  And  Cyprian,  one  of  the  great  fathers  of  the 
third  century,  strongly  condemned  any  thing  of  the  kind, 
in  these  expressive  words:  "For  none  of  us  ought  to  make 
liimself  a  bishop  of  bishops,  or  pretend  to  awe  his  brethren 


CO  "  Eccl.  Hist.,"  by  Du  Pin,  vol.  ii.,  p.  xvi. 
("°)  "Eccl.  Hist.,"  by  Sozomen,  bk,  i.,  ch.  ix. 
O  "  Eccl.  Hist.,"  by  Du  Pin,  vol.  ii.,  p.  xvi. 


THE  AllIAN  HERESY.  289 

by  a  tyrannical  fear,  because  every  bishop  is  at  liberty  to 
do  as  he  pleases,  and  can  no  more  he  judged  by  another  than 
he  can  judge  others  himself.^\^^) 

It  is  more  than  probable  that  the  controversy  about  Ari- 
anism,  which  did  so  much  to  retard  the  progress  of  Chris- 
tianity, grew  out  of  the  pride  and  vanity  of  the  original  con- 
testants— Alexander,  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  and  Arius,  one  of 
his  presbyters.  Such  was  the  opinion  of  Constantine.  He 
"wrote  to  rebuke  them"  for  having  originated  a  disturb- 
ance "of  a  truly  insignificant  character,  and  quite  unworthy 
of  such  fierce  contention."  He  cared  nothing  about  the  point 
of  doctrine  involved — whether  the  Son  was  of  the  same  or 
of  like  substance  with  the  Father,  or  whether  the  three  per- 
sons in  the  Trinity  were  equal  or  not.  The  probability  is 
that  he  had  no  well-defined  views  about  it.  At  all  events, 
his  chief  complaint  was  that  they  had  made  "  a  controversy 
public  which  it  was  in  their  power  to  have  concealed ;"  also 
that  it  was  "  the  disputatious  caviling  of  ill-employed  lei- 
sure," and  was  "  rather  consistent  with  puerile  thoughtless- 
ness than  suitable  to  the  intelligence  of  priests  and  prudent 
men."(") 

But  this  useless  controversy,  on  account  of  the  virulence 
and  malignity  with  which  it  was  carried  on  by  the  bishops 
and  clergy  on  both  sides,  led  to  the  Council  of  Nice,  in 
325  —  the  first  ecumenical  council.  The  Christian  world 
had  got  along  well  enough  for  nearly  three  hundred  years 
without  any  such  assemblage.  Innumerable  heresies  had 
sprung  up  between  the  planting  of  the  Church  at  Jerusalem 
and  that  time ;  and  the  influence  of  the  greater  part  of  them, 
if  not  nearly  all,  had  been  dispelled  by  the  love  and  charity 
which  the  apostolic  fathers  and  their  immediate  descend- 
ants reflected  in  their  lives  and  example.  To  none  of  them 
had  occurred  the  idea  of  an  external  church  organization 
with  powers  of  compulsion.  And  yet  the  Council  of  Nice, 
in  one  respect,  was  one  of  the  most  important  assemblages 
ever  held,  in  this :  that  it  placed  the  Christian  sentiment  of 


O  "  Eccl.  Hist.,"  by  Dn  Pin,  vols,  i.,  ii.,  p.  132. 

(")  "Life  of  Constantine,"  by  Eusebius,  bk.  ii.,  ch.  Ixviii. ;  Sozomen,  bk, 
i.,  chh.  xvi.,  xvii. 

19 


290  THE  TAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

the  apostolic  age  in  the  formula  of  a  creed  which,  if  it  had 
never  been  disturbed,  would  at  all  times  have  furnished — 
as  it  would  yet  furnish — the  common  ground  of  Christian 
union  throughout  the  world.  This,  however,  is  to  be  at- 
tributed mainly  to  the  fact  that  the  purity  of  Christian  life 
and  Church  government  had  been  preserved  in  the  ancient 
churches,  whose  influence  dictated  all  the  fundamentals  of 
the  Nicene  Creed ;  so  that  the  result  was  in  no  sense  ag- 
gressive, but  simply  responsive  to  the  existing  Christian 
sentiment  of  the  age.  In  another  respect,  the  tause  of  true 
Christianity  would  have  fared  better  if  it  never  had  been 
held,  or,  if  held,  it  had  grown  out  of  other  causes,  and  had 
been  controlled,  in  some  of  its  aspects,  by  other  influences. 
We  find  demonstration  of  this  in  the  fact  that  the  papal 
writers  yet  refer  to  it  in  proof  of  the  supremacy  and  infal- 
libility of  the  pope  and  Church  of  Rome ;  whereas,  apart 
from  the  causes  which  led  to  it  and  the  external  influences 
brought  to  bear  upon  it — that  is,  in  so  far  as  it  concerns  the 
Christian  faith — it  proves  neither,  but  the  reverse.  Bolder 
than  those  who  have  higher  reputations  to  maintain,  a  re- 
cent writer,  to  whom  reference  has  heretofore  been  made, 
has  carried  this  claim  to  its  extremest  limit  by  alleging  that 
all  the  ecumenical  councils,  including  that  at  Nice,  as  weW 
as  the  whole  Church  from  the  beginning,  have  recognized 
papal  infallibility  as  the  only  true  Christian  faith.  It 
scarcely  need  be  said  that  he  is  a  Jesuit.     He  says : 

"The  first  Council  of  Nice,  intended  to  give  greater  pub- 
licity to  the  condemnation  of  Arius,  was  convoked  by  Pope 
Silvester,  under  the  reign  of  Constantine  the  Great,  who  used 
his  imperial  authority  to  facilitate  the  meeting  of  the  fa- 
thers. The  sovereign  pontifl"  presided  by  his  three  legates, 
one  of  whom  was  Osius,  Bishop  of  Cordova.  The  other  two 
were  priests.  Osius,  whom  Athanasius  styles  the  leader  of 
the  council,  occupied  the  first  place,  attended  by  his  two 
companions.  How  great  the  deference  here  shown  to  the 
papal  authority,  since  the  mere  reflection  of  it  gave  even 
simple  priests  the  precedence  over  bishops,  who,  on  the  pres- 
ent occasion,  were  either  Orientals  or  Greeks,  and  yet  never 
objected  to  this  conduct  of  the  legates,  as  implying  an  undue 
assumption  of  power !     This  fact  alone  suffices  to  show  that 


MISSTATEMENTS  ABOUT  THE  COUNCIL  OF  NICE.     291 

the  prerogatives  of  the  Holy  See  were  then  recognized  all  over 
the  Christian  world.  No  one,  therefore,  will  be  at  all  star- 
tled by  the  fact  that,  even  previous  to  any  measures  taken 
by  the  councils,  the  legates,  acting  under  instructions,  con- 
demned the  blasphemous  doctrines  of  Arius.  The  fathers 
were  guided  in  their  deliberations  by  these  instructions,  as 
well  as  by  the  symbol  of  faith  prescribed  by  Silvester  and 
brought  from  Rome,  together  with  a  number  of  disciplinary 
regulations.  At  the  close  of  the  council,  all  the  acts  were 
se7it  to  Rome  for  confirmation.'*'' i^^) 

When  Sir  Walter  Scott  wrote  about  the  "tangled  web" 
woven  by  those  who  "  practice  to  deceive,"  he  must  have 
had  in  his  mind  some  such  monstrous  perversion  of  facts  as 
is  contained  in  this  brief  extract.  It  would  be  difficult  to 
find  elsewhere  so  much  misrepresentation  upon  important 
points  of  history  in  so  brief  a  compass.  And  yet  it  is  delib- 
erately put  forth,  and  largely  circulated  in  this  country,  as 
veritable  history  —  as  one  of  the  chief  foundation-stones 
upon  which  the  superstructure  of  the  papal  edifice  has  been 
erected.  We  occasionally  meet  with  individuals  who  so  fre- 
quently repeat  romantic  and  improbable  stories,  that  they 
come  at  last  to  believe  them  true.  And  such  would  seem 
to  be  the  only  apology  for  those  who  give  utterance  to  these 
unfounded  and  unsupported  assertions.  They  might  be  left 
to  indulge  in  their  delusion,  but  for  the  uses  they  now  make  of 
them.  Since,  however,  they  base  upon  them  the  right  of  the 
papacy  to  confront  the  world  and  command  all  human  prog- 
ress to  cease,  they  themselves  create  the  necessity  for  the 
discovery  of  the  precise  truth.  Having,  by  their  vindictive 
assaults  upon  Protestantism,  invited  the  investigation,  they 
will  have  no  right  to  complain  if,  when  the  truth  is  discov- 
ered, their  w^hole  system  of  papal  supremacy  should  topple 
and  fall  before  it. 

This  author  supports  his  statements  by  references  to  no 
other  of  the  "  Greek  fathers  "  but  Sozomen.  He,  however, 
cites  Athanasius  to  prove  that  Osius,  or  Hosius,  was  "  the 
leader  of  the  Council  of  Nice,"  and  the  eighteenth  and  twen- 

(J*)  "Apostolical  and  Infallible  Authority  of  the  Pope,"  ete.,by  Wenin- 
ger,  pp.  104, 105. 


292  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

ty-ninth  canons  of  the  council  to  show  that  the  supremacy 
and  primacy  of  the  pope  was  formally  acknowledged  by  it. 
Why  should  we  not  apply  to  the  investigation  of  such  mat- 
ters as  these  the  same  rules  of  evidence  by  which  we  test 
the  truth  or  falsehood  of  any  other  statements  we  find  in  his- 
tory ?  Undoubtedly  he  did  not  expect  them  to  be  subject- 
ed to  so  severe  a  test,  but  that  does  not  release  from  the 
responsibility  of  doing  so  those  who  desire  to  ascertain  the 
truth. 

Sozomen  is  supposed  to  have  written  his  "Ecclesiastical 
History"  about  440-'45 — more  than  a  hundred  years  after 
the  Council  of  Nice.  That  of  Socrates  was  written  about 
the  same  time,  probably  a  little  later.  Eusebius,  who  was  a 
member  of  the  Council  of  Nice,  preceded  both  of  them  with 
his  "Ecclesiastical  History,"  and,  of  course,  wrote  about 
many  things  of  which  he  had  personal  knowledge.  In  his 
"  History,"  however,  he  does  not  speak  of  the  proceedings  of 
the  council,  but  of  matters  preceding  it.  All  we  learn  from 
him  about  the  council  is  found  in  his  "  Life  of  Constantine." 
Theodoret's  "  Ecclesiastical  History  "  was  designed  as  a  con- 
tinuation of  those  of  Sozomen  and  Socrates,  and  must  have 
been  written  a  few  years  only  before  his  death,  which  occur- 
red about  458.  These  are  the  "Greek  fathers,"  from  whom 
must  be  learned  all  that  can  now  be  known  of  the  history 
of  the  Council  of  Nice,  whenever  we  turn  aside  from  mere 
guess-work  and  speculation  and  enter  into  the  region  of  fact. 

Not  one  of  these  authors  connects  the  Bishop  of  Rome  in 
any  direct  form  with  the  Arian  controversy  before  the  Coun- 
cil of  Nice.  Eusebius,  who  took  part  in  it,  does  not,  either 
in  his  "  History  "  or  *'  Life  of  Constantine."  Yet  this  mere 
omission  on  his  part  might  not  be  held  conclusive,  if  the 
others  had  done  so  upon  the  strength  of  tradition  only.  He 
tells  us  that  he  "  thought  proper  to  pass  by  "  many  things, 
"particularly  the  circumstances  of  the  different  heads  of  the 
churches,  who  from  being  shepherds  of  the  reasonable  flocks 
of  Christ  that  did  not  govern  in  a  legal  or  becoming  manner, 
were  condemned  by  divine  justice  as  unworthy  of  such  a 
charge ;"  and  also,  "  the  ambitious  aspirings  of  man}^  to  of- 
fice, and  the  injudicious  and  unlawful  ordinations  that  took 
place,  the   divisions  among  the  confessors  themselves,  the 


DIVISIONS  OF  THE  CLERGY  AT  HOME.  293 

great  schisms  and  difficulties  industriously  fomented  by  the 
new  members  against  the  relics  of  the  Church,  devising  one 
innovation  after  another,  and  unmercifully  thrusting  them 
into  the  midst  of  all  these  calamities,  heaping  up  affliction 
upon  affliction."(")  He  speaks  here  of  the  "heads  of 
churches,"  in  the  plural,  which  excludes  the  idea  of  there 
having  been  any  such  thing  known  in  his  day  as  the  Church 
of  Rome  being  the  head  and  "mistress"  of  all  the  churches: 
but  as  we  must  conclude,  from  what  he  elsewhere  said,  that 
he  intended  to  picture  the  melancholy  condition  of  things 
existing  at  Rome,  in  consequence  of  the  alliance  between 
Constantine  and  the  Roman  clergy,  it  is  easy  to  see  that  he 
also  included  Rome  when  he  spoke  of  "  the  ambitious  aspir- 
ings of  many  to  office,"  and  the  consequent  "divisions"  and 
"  innovations."  Prudential  reasons,  therefore,  may  have  re- 
strained him  from  any  special  reference  to  the  connection  of 
the  Bishop  of  Rome  with  the  Arian  controversy.  However 
this  may  be,  he  is  silent  on  that  subject,  and  we  have  now 
no  means  of  supplying  the  omission,  if  it  is  merely  an  omis- 
sion, unless  it  can  be  gathered  from  what  he  may  have  left 
to  be  inferred,  or  from  the  other  authors  named,  or  be  spe- 
cially manufactured  in  support  of  some  preconceived  theory. 
So  far  from  his  having  said  any  thing  justifying  such  an  in- 
ference, he  excludes  any  such  idea  entirely  in  his  "Life  of 
Constantine,"  where,  speaking  of  "  the  people  being  thus  in 
every  place  divided,"  and  the  prevalence  of  "  the  bitterest 
disunion,"  he  says  that  "Constantine  appeared  to  be  the 
only  one  on  earth  capable  of  being  His  [God's]  minister,"  to 
provide  "the  healing  of  these  differences,"  without  referring 
to  the  Bishop  of  Rome  as  having  any  agency  or  authority  in 
the  matter.C**)  Sozomen  gives  an  account  of  the  origin  of 
the  controversy  between  Arius  and  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria, 
and  states  the  fact  that  the  latter  convened  a  council  of  Af- 
rican bishops  within  his  own  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  and 
"  cast  him  [Arius]  out  of  the  Church,"  together  with  certain 
African  presbyters  and  deacons  who  agreed  with  him.  Ari- 
us, in   defense,  sought  "  the  favor  of  the  bishops  of  other 

C^)  Eusebius's  "Book  of  Martyrs,"  oh.  xii, 

C^)  "Life  of  Constantine,"  by  Euseblus,  bk.  iii.,  ch.  v. 


294  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

churches,"  and  addressed  letters  to  them.     The  Bishop  of 

Alexandria  also  "  wrote  to  the  bishops  of  every  church  " 

not  to  Rome  specially,  where  alone  it  would  have  been  nec- 
essary to  write  if  that  had  been  the  seat  of  headship  and 
primacy  in  the  Church  Universal.  JSTumerous  synods  were 
held.  "Arius  sent  messengers  to  Paulinus,  Bishop  of  Tyre ; 
to  Eusebius  Pamphilus,(")  who  presided  over  the  Church  of 
Cesarea  in  Palestine,  and  to  Patrophilus,  Bishop  of  Scythop- 
olis."  Intelligence  of  these  dissensions  having  reached  Con- 
stantine,  the  emperor,  who  had  been  a  long  time  absent  from 
Rome,  he  was  "  greatly  troubled,"  probably  because  he  sin- 
cerely desired,  by  this  time,  that  the  cause  of  Christianity 
should  not  be  injured  by  them,  and  probably  also  because  he 
feared  that  these  perpetual  divisions  among  the  clergy  would 
weaken  his  hold  upon  the  imperial  throne  at  Rome.  He  ac- 
cordingly went  to  work  at  once  to  employ  his  temporal  au- 
thority to  heal  the  breach,  and  "  rebuked  "  the  contestants, 
Arius  and  Alexander,  as  already  stated.  (")  Sozomen  does 
not  give  this  letter  of  Constantine,but  Eusebius  does;  and 
it  shows  very  clearly  that  he  acted  in  the  matter  wholly 
without  reference  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome.  It,  moreover, 
shows  too  that  he  had  a  just  and  intelligent  appreciation  of 
the  great  principle  upon  which  Protestantism  is  based ;  for, 
after  characterizing  the  dispute  between  Arius  and  Alexan- 
der as  upon  "  truly  insignificant  questions,"  merely  "  some 
trifling  and  foolish  verbal  difference,"  he  points  them  to  the 
example  of  the  philosophers,  who, "  though  they  may  differ 
as  to  the  perfection  of  a  principle,  they  are  recalled  to  har- 
mony of  sentiment  by  the  uniting  power  of  their  common 
doctrines^^  and  counsels  them  not  to  let  "  the  circumstance 
which  has  led  to  a  slight  difference  between  you,  since  it  af- 
fects not  the  general  principles  of  truth,  be  allowed  to  pro- 
long any  division  or  schism  among  you ;"...."  for  we  are 
not  all  of  us  like-minded  on  every  subject,  nor  is  there  such 
a  thing  as  one  disposition  and  judgment  common  to  all 
alike."('')     It  is  therefore  manifest  that  the  Christian  senti- 


C)  The  author  of  the  "Ecclesiastical  History." 

C^**)  Sozomen,  hk.  i.,  chh.  xv.,  xvi. 

Q^)  "Life  of  Constantine,"  by  Eusebius,  chh.  Ixiv.-lxxii. 


CONSTANTINE  A  PAGAN  EMPEROR.  295 

ment  which  Eusebius  attributes  to  Constantine  was  not  that 
exclusive  and  sectarian  sentiment  which  the  clergy  at  Rome 
were  then  endeavoring  to  establish,  and  which,  as  he  could 
readily  foresee,  would  widen  rather  than  close  up  the  breach. 
Although  he  may  have  favored  the  Christians  there  from  a 
general  conviction  of  Christian  duty,  and  given  temporal  au- 
thority to  the  clergy  from  motives  of  State  policy  only ;  yet 
it  is  also  manifest  that  he  did  not  intend  to  permit  any 
church  organization  to  grow  up  at  Rome,  with  exterior  au- 
thority sufficient  to  control  or  absorb  the  legitimate  power 
of  the  other  churches.  However  much  a  Christian  he  may 
have  been,  he  was  now  at  the  head  of  a  pagan  empire,  and 
no  doubt  thought  that  his  whole  public  duty  was  performed 
by  the  establishment  of  religious  toleration.  Hence,  in  deal- 
ing with  the  Arian  controversy,  he  ignored  entirely  any 
claim  of  exclusive  jurisdiction  on  the  part  of  the  Bishop  of 
Rome,  if  any  such  was  set  up,  which  is  not  probable,  and 
treated  the  question  as  one  which  he,  as  emperor,  was  re- 
quired to  submit  to  all  the  bishops  alike.  And  this  view  of 
the  policy  of  Constantine  will  sufficiently  explain  his  subse- 
quent dealings  with  the  Roman  clergy. 

Socrates  gives  substantially  the  same  general  account  as 
Eusebius  and  Sozomen,  adding  the  letter  of  the  Bishop  of 
Alexandria.  This  letter  is  as  conclusive  as  it  is  possible  for 
negative  evidence  to  be  upon  the  question  of  Romish  su- 
premacy at  that  time.  It  is  addressed  "  to  the  bishops  con- 
stituted in  the  several  cities" — not  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome 
alone.  This  great  orthodox  bishop  employs  this  language : 
"To  our  beloved  and  most  honored  fellow-ministers  of  the 
Catholic  [not  Roman  Catholic]  Church  everywhere."  He 
complains  especially  that  Eusebius  of  Nicomediaf)  had 
taken  the  side  of  Arius,  and  argues  at  length  to  show  the 
heretical  tendency  of  their  teachings.  Matters,  however, 
only  became  worse :  "  To  so  disgraceful  an  extent,"  says 
Socrates,  "  was  this  affair  carried,  that  Christianity  became 
a  subject  of  popular  ridicule,  even  in  the  theatres."  Euse- 
bius of  Nicomedia  demanded  of  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria 
that  the  sentence  of  excommunication  he  had  pronounced 

(^'')  Not  the  historian. 


296  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

against  Arius  should  be  rescinded ;  and  many  letters  were 
written  on  both  sides,  some  favoring  and  some  opposing  this 
proposition.  The  opposing  factions  became  divided  into 
"  sects,"  and  these,  with  the  Eunomians,  Macedonians,  and 
Melitians,  threatened  to  put  an  end  to  all  the  harmony  that 
had  previously  existed  in  the  several  churches.  And  yet 
Socrates,  like  Eusebius  and  Sozomen,  omits  any  mention  of 
the  Bishop  or  Church  of  Rome,  either  as  appealed  to  by  the 
parties,  or  as  interfering  to  quiet  the  dissensions.  He  makes 
Hosius  the  messenger  by  whom  Constantine  sent  his  letter 
of  rebuke  to  Alexander  and  Arius,  but  does  not  connect  him 
in  any  way  with  the  Bishop  of  Rome.(") 

Theodoret  also  refers  to  the  beginning  of  the  controversy. 
He  inserts  a  letter  from  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria  to  the 
Bishop  of  Constantinople,  wherein  several  other  "  sects  "  are 
named,  besides  those  mentioned  by  Socrates:  to  wit,  the 
Ebionites,  Artemontes,  Sabellians,  and  Yalentinians  (a  branch 
of  the  Gnostics) ;  thus  demonstrating  that  sects  did  not 
grow  out  of  Protestantism,  but  justifying  the  inference  that 
if  they  did  not  necessarily  arise  out  of  the  attempt  to  estab- 
lish Roman  exclusiveness,  they  were  increased  by  it.  He 
publishes  the  letter  of  Arius  to  Eusebius,  wherein  he  calls 
the  Bishop  of  Alexandria  "  the  Pope  Alexander."  This  is 
the  first  time  that  the  title  o^  pope  appears  in  any  of  these 
"Greek  fathers"  in  connection  with  the  Arian  controversy. 
And  he  gives  also  a  letter  from  Eusebius  to  the  Bishop  of 
Tyre.  Nowhere,  however,  does  he  refer  to  the  Bishop  of 
Rome,  or  the  Pope  of  Rome,  as  having  any  thing  whatev- 
er to  do  with  either  Alexander  or  Arius,  or  with  their  re- 
spective adherents.  But,  in  enumerating  the  bishops  of 
Rome,  Antioch,  Jerusalem,  and  Constantinople,  he  says, 
"The  Church  of  Rome  was  at  this  time  ruled  by  Silvester;" 
and  neither  says  nor  intimates  that  he  ruled  any  other  of 
the  churches,  or  that  he  had  any  more  authority  than  the 
bishop  of  any  other  Church. (")  Manifestly,  it  is  a  just  in- 
ference, from  the  fact  that  no  letter  is  shown  to  have  been 
addressed  to  or  from  him,  that  he  was  then  considered  by 

C^)  Socrates,  bk.  i,,  chh.  v.,  vi,,  vii. 

(*")  "  Eccl.  Hist.,"  by  Theodoret,  bk.  i.,  chh.  ii.-vi. 


COUNCIL  OF  NICE  CALLED  BY  CONSTANTINE.       297 

the  whole  Christian  world  as  having  no  such  exclusive  au- 
thority. 

The  evidence,  therefore,  both  affirmative  and  negative, 
furnished  by  these  early  fathers,  rendering  it  almost  posi- 
tively certain  that,  before  the  Council  of  Nice,  the  Bishop 
of  Rome  was  not  referred  to,  by  appeal  or  otherwise,  as  a 
judge  or  arbiter  to  settle  the  dispute  about  Arianism,  it  is 
necessary,  in  order  to  ascertain  his  true  relation  to  that 
council,  to  know  by  whom  it  was  convened,  and  under 
whose  auspices  its  business  was  conducted.  These  same  au- 
thors must  also  settle  this  question. 

Eusebius  says :  "  Resolved,  therefore,  to  bring,  as  it  were, 
a  divine  array  against  this  enemy,  he  [Constantine]  con- 
voked a  general  council,  and  invited  the  speedy  attendance 
of  bishops  from  all  quarters,  in  letters  expressive  of  the  hon- 
orable estimation  in  which  he  held  them."  And  he  speaks 
of  his  summons  as  a  "command"  and  an  "imperial  injunc- 
tion." (")  Sozomen  says  that  after  the  letter  of  the  emperor, 
sent  by  Hosius  to  Alexander  and  Arius,  had  failed  to  restore 
harmony, "  Constantine  convened  a  synod  at  Nicsea,  in  Bi- 
thynia,  and  wrote  to  the  most  eminent  men  of  the  churches 
in  every  country,  directing  them  to  be  there  on  an  appoint- 
ed day."(")  Socrates  says,  "  When,  therefore,  the  emperor 
beheld  the  Church  agitated  by  both  these  causes,  he  con- 
voked a  general  council,  summoning  all  the  bishops  by  let- 
ter to  meet  him  at  Nice,  in  Bithynia."(")  Theodoret,  refer- 
rincT  to  the  failure  of  Constantine  to  bring  about  a  reconcil- 
iation,  says,  "  He,  therefore,  proceeded  to  summon  the  cele- 
brated Council  of  Nice;  and  commanded  that  the  bishops, 
and  those  connected  with  them,  should  be  mounted  on  the 
asses,  mules,  and  horses  belonging  to  the  public,  in  order  to 
repair  thither." ('") 

Now,  with  this  evidence  before  us  —  and  this  is  all  we 
have  from  these  early  fathers,  beginning  with  Eusebius,  who 
personally  knew  all  about  it — are  we  not  justified  in  saying 
that,  when  papal  writers  say,  as  Weninger  does,  that  the 

(^)  "Life  of  Constantine,"  by  Eusebius,  bk.  iii.,  ch.  vi. 

C*)  Sozomen,  bk.  i.,  ch.  xvii.  C)  Socrates,  bk.  i.,  ch.  viii. 

C)  Theodoret,  bk.  i.,  ch.  vii.     See  also  Du  Pin,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  12,  250. 


298  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

Council  of  Nice  was  "  convoked  by  Pope  Silvester,"  they 
state  as  a  fact  that  which  is  not  a  fact — to  speak  in  the 
mildest  terms?  The  plain  and  well-established  truth  is 
that  he  had  nothing  more  to  do  with  it  than  the  bishops  of 
the  other  churches,  and  not  so  much  as  some  of  them — es- 
pecially those  to  whom  Alexander  and  Arius  had  addressed 
their  letters.  It  was  wholly  and  entirely  the  work  of  Con- 
stantine,  the  emperor,  who  never  even  became  a  catechumen, 
by  baptism,  in  the  Church  of  Rome  ;  whose  only  Christian- 
ity was  Catholic,  in  the  sense  of  universality,  and  not  in  the 
sectarian  sense  of  Rome,  and  who  had  not  yet  become  so  un- 
selfish as  to  overlook  the  worldly  object  he  had  in  view  when 
he  employed  the  clergy  to  aid  him  in  the  administration  of 
civil  affairs  ;  which  was,  to  keep  himself  firmly  seated  upon 
the  imperial  throne.  He  was  willing  to  unite  the  Church 
with  the  State;  but  no  word  ever  escaped  him,  so  far  as  his 
biographer  has  reported,  signifying  any  other  purpose  than 
that  of  keeping  the  Church  below  and  inferior  to  the  State. 
On  one  occasion,  when  addressing  a  company  of  bishops  in 
the  presence  of  Eusebius,  he  said  to  them,  "  You  are  bish- 
ops whose  jurisdiction  is  within  the  Church  :  I  also  am  a 
bishop,  ordained  by  God  to  overlook  whatever  is  external 
to  the  Church ;"(")  whereby  he  intended  to  have  it  distinct- 
ly understood  that  he  should  permit  no  church  organization 
with  external  powers,  either  of  coercion  or  otherwise,  to  in- 
termeddle, directly  or  indirectly,  with  the  affairs  of  the  em- 
pire. 

The  assignment  of  a  direct  and  immediate  agency  to  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  in  convoking  the  Council  of  Nice  being 
false,  the  other  statements  of  Weninger  might  be  held,  infer- 
entially,  to  be  false  also.  ^'Pulsus  in  uno,  falsus  in  omni- 
bus,''^  is  an  old  and  well-approved  law  maxim.  But  as  it  is 
a  maxim  which,  though  sometimes  true,  is  said  not  to  be  of 
general  application,  and  grave  matters  like  those  we  are  dis- 
cussing should  not  be  left  to  inference  merely,  his  other 
statements  should  likewise  be  tested  by  the  proofs. 

He  says,  "The  sovereign  pontiff"  presided  by  his  three 
legates,  one  of  whom  was  Osius,  Bishop  of  Cordova."     This 

(")  *'  Life  of  Constantine,"  by  Eusebius,  bk.  iv.,  ch.  xxiv. 


THE  POPE'S  LEGATES  AT  NICE.  299 

statement  is  more  false  than  the  one  preceding  it.     Spenser 
says,  in  "  The  Faerie  Qiieene," 

•'  For  he  that  once  hath  missed  the  right  way, 
The  further  he  doth  go,  the  further  he  doth  stray." 

Eusebius,  after  a  general  enumeration  of  the  countries 
from  which  the  "  distinguished  prelates  "  who  attended  the 
council  came,  says, "  The  prelate  of  the  imperial  city  [Rome] 
was  prevented  from  attending  by  extreme  old  age ;  but  his 
presbyters  were  present,  and  supplied  his  place."  He  does 
not  refer  to  any  other  presbyters  who  were  there,  and  cer- 
tainly does  not  include  Hosius  among  those  who  represented 
the  Bishop  of  Rome,  for  two  reasons :  first,  because  he  class- 
es him  among  the  prelates ;  and,  second,  because,  in  the  pre- 
ceding sentence,  referring  to  Hosius,  he  had  said, "  Even  from 
Spain  itself  one  whose  fame  was  widely  spread  took  his  seat 
as  an  individual  in  the  great  assembly." (^^)  Hence,  Hosius, 
who  was  Bishop  of  Cordova,  and  the  only  representative  of 
Spain  present,  took  his  seat  in  his  own  individual  right  as 
one  of  the  most  distinguished  prelates,  and  not  as  a  mere 
presbyter  or  legate  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  of  whom  he  was 
the  equal  in  authority  and  the  superior  in  fame. 

Sozomen,  referring  to  the  absence  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome 
on  account  of  old  age,  says,  "  But  his  place  was  supplied  by 
Vito  and  Vicentius,  presbyters  of  his  Church. "(^^)  Thus  he 
makes  two  legates  only  from  Rome,  and  not  three;  and  does 
not  mention  Hosius  as  one  of  them.  Socrates  makes  no  state- 
ment on  his  own  authority,  but  refers  approvingly  to  what 
Eusebius  has  said.  He  says  nothing  about  Hosius  being  the 
legate  of  Silvester,  but  refers  to  his  presbyters.  Theodoret 
does  not  mention  Hosius,  but  agrees  with  Sozomen  as  to  the 
number  of  the  papal  legates,  and  with  Eusebius,  Sozomen, 
and  Socrates  as  to  their  character — that  is,  that  they  were 
presbyters,  and  not  bishops.  He  says  Silvester  "  sent  two 
presbyters  to  the  council,  for  the  purpose  of  taking  part  in 
all  the  transactions. "(*")     Hosius  was  not   a  presbyter   of 

(^*')  "Life  of  Constantine,"  by  Eusebius,  bk.  iii.,  ch.  vii, 
(^^)  Sozomen,  bk.  i.,  ch.  xvii.     Du  Pin  calls  them  Victor  and  Vicentius, 
"Eccl.  Hist.,"  vol.  ii.,  p.  251;  and  Tillemont,  Vitus  and  Vincentius.     See 
post.  (*'')/rheodoret,  bk.  i.,  ch.  vii. 


300  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

Rome^  bnt  was  the  Bishop  of  Cordova  in  Spain,  as  is  stated 
by  both  Sozomen(*')  and  Socrates,(")  and  could  not,  conse- 
quently, have  been  one  of  the  papal  legates.  But  not  a 
word  is  stated  by  either  of  these  authors  about  the  Bishop 
of  Rome  being  represented  by  Hosius,  either  as  one  of  his 
legates  or  in  any  other  capacity.  They  all  concur  in  the 
precise  contrary,  that  he  was  represented  by  presbyters,  and 
not  bishops;  and  Sozomen  and  Theodoret  agree  that  there. 
were  only  two  of  these.  And  why  were  they  only  presby- 
ters ?  The  answer  is  plain.  Each  one  of  the  churches  in 
Asia,  Europe,  and  Africa  had  its  own  bishop,  and  its  own  dis- 
tinct jurisdiction.  They  existed  upon  terras  of  perfect  equal- 
ity, none  having  any  primacy  or  supremacy  over  the  oth- 
ers. Therefore,  when  these  bishops  were  summoned  by  Con- 
stantine,  those  who  could  not  attend  in  person  sent  their 
presbyters — as  the  Bishop  of  Rome  did — and  those  who  at- 
tended represented  their  own  churches.  Hosius  represented 
his  own  Church,  and  was  a  man  of  far  too  much  celebrity 
to  have  surrendered  his  equality  with  his  brother  bishops  to 
play  an  inferior  part  in  the  name  of  such  a  bishop  as  Silves- 
ter, of  whom  scarcely  any  thing  was  known  beyond  the  fact 
of  his  having  been  Bishop  of  Rome,  until  the  false  and  forged 
legends  of  the  monks  in  the  fifth  century  assigned  to  him 
the  connection  with  the  Council  of  Nice,  which  has  ever 
since  been  disingenuously  repeated  by  the  supporters  of  pa- 
pal power  and  infallibility. 

But  who  presided  over  the  Council  of  Nice  ?  Weninger 
says,  "The  sovereign  pontiff  presided,  by  his  three  legates." 
Enough  has  been  said  to  show  that  there  was  no  such  thing 
as  a  "sovereign  pontiff"  known  or  recognized  in  those  days, 
especially  not  in  the  sense  here  meant ;  but  that  need  not 
be  dwelt  on  here.  There  were  but  two  legates,  and  they 
were  both  presbyters  only.  Can  any  man  of  intelligence 
suppose  that  such  an  assembly,  composed  of  so  many  distin- 
guished bishops,  at  a  time  like  that,  when  rank  and  station 
had  attached  to  them  far  more  of  dignity  and  influence  than 
they  now  have,  would  have  submitted  to  be  presided  over 
by  mere  presbyters  ?     The  supporters  of  the  monkish  fable 

(")  Sozomen,  bk.  i.,  ch.  xvi.  (")  Socrates,  bk.  i.,  ch.  vii. 


THE  PRESIDENCY  OF  THE  COUNCIL  OF  NICE.        301 

have  observed  this  difficult}^,  but  have  proved  themselves 
equal  to  it  by  increasing  the  papal  legates  to  three,  and  mak- 
ing Hosius  one  of  them  !  There  were  a  large  number  pres- 
ent, besides  him,  of  eminent  ability.  Eusebius  says,  "Some 
were  distinguished  by  wisdom  and  eloquence,  others  by  the 
gravity  of  their  lives,  and  by  patient  fortitude  of  character, 
while  others  again  united  in  themselves  all  these  graces." 
And  he  speaks  of  men  among  them  "  whose  years  demanded 
the  tribute  of  respect  and  veneration."(")  Socrates  men- 
tions two  of  "  extraordinary  celebrity,"  the  bishops  of  Upper 
Thebes  and  of  Cyprus.  Who  of  all  these  presided  ?  There 
is  no  positive  answer  to  this  question.  Manifestly,  it  was 
not  considered  a  matter  of  any  special  consequence,  and  cer- 
tainly not  as  in  any  way  affecting  the  merits  or  validity  of 
what  was  done,  or  the  fact  would  have  been  stated.  Euse- 
bius says  that,  upon  the  assembling  of  the  body, "  the  bishop 
who  occupied  the  chief  place  in  the  right  division  of  the  as- 
sembly then  rose,  and,  addressing  the  emperor,  delivered  a 
concise  speech,"  etc.,(**)  but  he  does  not  say  who  this  was. 
Nor  does  Sozomen,  or  Socrates,  or  Theodoret.  But  Eusebius 
shows  enough  to  dispel  the  papal  fiction  and  forgery,  that 
one  of  the  pope's  legates  presided,  by  the  statement  of  tlie 
fact,  of  which  he  had  personal  knowledge,  that  a  "  bishop," 
and  not  a  "  presbyter,"  presided. 

Weninger  says, "  Osius,  whom  Athanasius  styles  the  lead- 
er of  the  council,  occupied  the  first  place."  If  this  were  an 
established  fact,  it  would  prove  only  this :  that,  in  order  to 
support  the  claim  of  Romish  supremacy,  its  advocates  origi- 
nated the  false  assertion  that  he  was  one  of  the  papal  leg- 
ates, without  a  single  word  of  authority  from  any  responsible 
or  reliable  quarter.  Athanasius  became  Bishop  of  Alexan- 
dria in  326,  the  year  after  the  council.  He  was  present  at 
the  council  as  a  deacon  ;  and  whatever  is  found  in  his  writ- 
ings in  reference  to  it  is  entitled  to  the  greatest  considera- 
tion, and  ought  to  be  accepted  as  true.  In  his  "  Second 
Apology,"  he  calls  "  Hosius  the  father  and  president  of  all 
the  councils,"(")  not  specially  of  the  Council  of  Nice.     He 

(")  "Life  of  Constiintine,"  by  Eusebius,  bk,  iii.,  ch.  xi. 

(")  Ibid.,  bk.  iii.,  ch.  xi.  (^*)  Du  Pin,  vol.  ii.,  p.  251,  note. 


302  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

certainly  does  not  say  here  that  he  was  the  leader  of  that 
council.  Between  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century  and 
the  Council  of  Nice  there  were  twelve  councils  assem- 
bled. (")  To  which  of  these  did  Athanasius  refer?  If  to  all, 
including  that  at  Nice,  then  it  was  merely  probable  that 
Hosius  presided  over  that  council.  But  it  is  more  probable 
that  he  designedly  employed  general  language,  because,  like 
Eusebius,  Sozomen,  Socrates,  and  Theodoret,  he  did  not  con- 
sider the  presidency  of  the  Council  of  Nice  as  a  matter  of 
any  special  importance ;  otherwise  he  would,  undoubtedly, 
have  stated  who  presided  there,  for  he  knew  precisely  what 
the  fact  was.  At  all  events,  he  leaves  it  in  doubt  whether 
he  intended  to  include  Nice  or  not.  And  reasoning  thus, 
Du  Pin,  the  learned  Roman  Catholic  historian,  says,  upon 
this  question,  "  'Tis  not  certainly  known  who  presided  in 
this  council,  but  'tis  very  probable  that  it  was  Hosius."(*^) 
But,  upon  this  hypothesis,  he  proceeds  immediately  to  say 
that  he  did  so  "  in  his  own  name^''  and,  therefore,  not  in  the 
name  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  or  as  one  of  his  legates.  And 
in  a  note  to  this  text  it  is  stated  that  at  least  two  writers, 
Proclus  and  Facundus,  have  alleged  that  Eustathius,  Bishop 
of  Antioch,  presided.  It  then  continues  :  "  But  it  is  more 
probable  that  Hosius  presided  there  in  his  own  name^  and 
not  in  the  pope's;  for  he  nowhere  assumes  the  title  of  Leg- 
ate of  the  Holy  See,  and  none  of  the  ancients  say  that  he 
presided  in  this  council  in  the  pope's  name.  Gelasius  Cy- 
zicenus,  who  first  affirmed  it,  says  it  without  any  proof  or 
authority.'' ('') 

But  there  is  other  cumulative  evidence  to  the  same  effect, 
also  from  the  very  highest  Roman  Catholic  authority.  Til- 
lemont,  in  his  learned  and  instructive  "  History  of  the  Ari- 
ans,  and  of  the  Council  of  Nice,"  disposes  of  this  question 
in  very  decisive  and  expressive  language.  Alluding  to  the 
council,  and  after  stating  that  it  was  convoked  by  Constan- 
tine,  and  not  by  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  he  says : 

"Neither  Eusebius  nor  the  ancient  historians  say  any 
thing  of  St.  Silvester's  sending  any  other  legates  to   the 


C)  See  Du  Pin's  "  Chronological  Table  of  Councils,"  attached  to  vol.  ii. 
of  his  "  History."  {*'')  Ibid.,  vol.  ii. ,  p.  251.  C)  ^^»'^- 


FALSEHOOD  EXPOSED.  303 

Council  of  Nice,  but  the  two  priests,  Vitus  and  Yincentius. 
There  is  none  but  Gelasius  Cyzicenus  who  says  that  Hosius 
of  Corduba  had  the  same  post.  His  authority,  how  incon- 
siderable soever  it  be,  could  not  but  be  of  weight,  if  it  was 
not  certain  that  he  corrupts  the  text  of  Eusebius  by  insert- 
ing this  and  some  other  clauses." 

Then,  referring  to  the  pretense  that  Hosius  presided  over 
the  council  in  the  name  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  to  the 
language  of  Athanasius  already  quoted,  he  continues: 

"  We  have  even  some  authorities  for  believing  that  it  was 
St.  Eustathius  of  Antioch  who  presided  in  the  council.  For 
John  of  Antioch,  writing  to  St.  Proclus,  about  the  year  435, 
gives  him  the  title  of  "  first "  of  the  holy  fathers  assembled 
at  Nice,  and  Facundus,  the  "  first "  of  that  council.  It  is 
collected  from  Theodoret  that  he  had  the  first  place  on  the 
right  hand,  and  that  he  made  a  speech  to  Constantine  in  the 
name  of  all  the  bishops — which,  of  course,  belongs  to  the 
president.  It  is  thought  the  same  might  be  shown  from  St. 
Jerome.  The  chronicon  of  Nicephorus  calls  him  express- 
ly the  chief  of  the  fathers  at  Nice.  St.  Anastasius  Sinaita 
might  likewise  mean  the  same  thing ;  and  the  title  of  pres- 
ident is  found  in  a  letter  attributed  to  Pope  Felix  III., 
which  would  be  much  more  considerable  authority  if  there 
were  not  many  reasons  to  induce  us  to  believe  that  this 
piece  is  not  older  than  the  eighth  century." 

In  a  note  it  is  said  :  "  Gelasius  Cyzicenus,  who  lived  at  the 
end  of  the  fifth  century,  is  the  first  we  find  who  says  that 
Hosius  was  the  pope's  legate  in  the  Council  of  Nice,  with 
the  priests  Vito  and  Vincentius.  He  even  reports  this  fact 
as  a  thing  very  authentic,  since  he  inserts  it  in  the  text  of 
Eusebius^  as  if  it  belonged  to  it.  But  it  is  not  found  there 
in  the  printed  copies.  Valesius  takes  no  notice  of  any  thing 
like  it  in  the  manuscripts.  And  it  is  even  evident  that  the 
text  of  that  historian  can  not  be  read,  as  Gelasius  quotes  it, 
without  a  manifest  corruption  and  perverting  his  sense. 

"All  that  can  be  said  of  this  pretended  delegation  of  Ho- 
sius, is  that  all  the  historians  mention  his  assisting  at  the 
Council  of  Nice,  and  speak  of  legates  who  were  sent  thither 
by  the  pope  ;  but  that  no  author  more  ancient  than  Gelasius, 
nor  perhaps  any  more  modern  who  is  .worth  notice  in  this 


304  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

matter,  puts  Hosius  in  the  number  of  those  legates.  Even 
the  '  Synodicon,'  which  in  other  respects  is  full  of  faults, 
does  by  no  means  place  Hosius  among  the  pope's  leg- 
ates."(") 

Thus  is  this  falsehood,  which  originated  nearly  two  hun- 
dred years  after  the  Council  of  Nice,  completely  disposed 
of  by  authorities  which  no  honest  searcher  after  the  truth 
can  disregard.  Until  it  was  invented  as  a  cover  for  papal 
usurpations,  not  one  word  was  to  be  found  anywhere,  in  any 
history,  showing,  or  tending  to  show,  that  Hosius  was  one 
of  the  pope's  legates,  or  presided  in  his  name.  The  forgery 
has  its  parallel  only  in  the  "False  Decretals,"  which  soon 
followed  it.  If  he  did  preside  in  any  other  name  than  his 
own,  it  is  far  more  likely  to  have  been  in  that  of  Constan- 
tine  than  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome.  Constantine  convened 
the  Council,  and  was  present;  the  Bishop  of  Rome  had  noth- 
ing to  do  with  it  except  to  send  his  representatives,  as  he 
was  prevented  by  old  age  from  attending  in  person,  like 
other  bishops.  We  know  nothing  of  the  relations  between 
him  and  Hosius,  except  that  they  were  bishops  of  distinct 
and  independent  churches,  one  in  Italy  and  the  other  in 
Spain.  But  we  do  know,  as  Du  Pin  says,  that  Hosius  "  was 
much  esteemed  by  the  emperor,"  and  that  he  was,  accord- 
ing to  the  intimation  of  Eusebius  and  the  statements  of 
Sozomen  and  Socrates,  the  messenger  by  whom  he  sent  his 
letter  of  rebuke  to  Alexander  and  Arius.  This  would  give 
some  plausibility  to  the  belief  that  he  presided  in  the  em- 
peror's name.  But  this  is  of  no  importance,  since  the  ques- 
tion before  us  involves  simply  the  truth  or  falsehood  of  the 
pretense  that  Hosius  presided  in  the  name  of  the  pope. 
This  is  shown  to  be  not  only  unsupported  by  a  word  of 
proof,  but  absolutely  false — a  bold  and  unblushing  forgery  ! 

Weninger  says  again:  "The  fathers  were  guided  in  their 
deliberations  by  these  instructions  [those  of  the  pope  to  his 
legates],  as  well  as  by  the  symbol  of  faith  prescribed  by 
Silvester  and  brought  from  Rome." 

If  history  did  not  furnish  the  most  positive  proof  of  the 


(")  "History  of  the  Avians  and  of  the  Council  of  Nice,"  by  Tillemont, 
vol.  ii.,  pp.  599,  600,  669,  note  iv.     London  ed.,  1732. 


CONSTANTINE  RULED  THE  COUNCIL  OF  NICE.       305 

falsity  of  what  is  here  asserted,  it  might  be  supposed  to  be 
true,  because  of  the  frequency  of  its  repetition  and  the  ap- 
parent sincerity  with  which  it  is  made.  But,  like  what  has 
gone  before  it,  it  vanishes  before  the  "touch-stone  of  truth." 
The  council  was  disturbed  at  the  very  beginning  by 
angry  discussion  among  the  discordant  bishops.  Says  Eu- 
sebius :  "  Some  began  to  accuse  their  neighbors,  who  de- 
fended themselves,  and  recriminated  in  their  turn."  He 
continues :  "  In  this  manner  numberless  assertions  were  put 
forth  by  each  party,  and  a  violent  controversy  arose  at  the 
very  commencement."  The  contending  parties  seem  to 
have  addressed  themselves  not  merely  to  the  assembly  it- 
self, but  to  the  emperor.  Manifestly,  he  was  regarded  as 
the  ruling  spirit  of  the  council.  He,  probably,  did  not  at- 
tempt to  employ  his  imperial  authority  to  control  its  de- 
liberations, but  it  is  unquestionably  true  that  they  were 
mainly  influenced  by  the  deference  paid  to  it  by  a  majority 
of  the  prelates.  It  is  probable,  even,  that  many  of  them 
were  absolutely  governed  by  it.  Eusebius  says  as  much  in 
this:  that,  notwithstanding  the  violence  of  the  discussion, 
"the  emperor  gave  patient  audience  to  all  alike,  and  re- 
ceived every  proposition  with  steadfast  attention,  and,  by 
occasionally  assisting  the  argument  of  each  party  in  turn, 
he  gradually  disposed  even  the  most  vehement  disputants 
to  a  reconciliation."  By  his  address,  and  his  eloquence  in 
the  Greek  language,  he  persuaded  some,  and  convinced  oth- 
ers, "  until  at  last  he  succeeded  in  bringing  them  to  one 
mind  and  judgment  respecting  every  disputed  question." 
The  result  thus  produced  was,  "  that  they  were  not  only 
united  as  concerning  the  faith,"  but  also  as  to  the  time  of 
celebrating  the  feast  of  Easter.  Whereupon  the  "  points  " 
were  "  committed  to  writing,  and  received  the  signature  of 
each  several  member,"  and  a  festival  was  solemnized  in  hon- 
or of  God.(^'*)  In  all  this  there  is  no  mention  made  of  the 
Bishop  of  Rome,  or  of  any' instructions  from  him,  or  of  any 
formula  of  faith  prepared  by  him,  or  of  any  thing  said  or 
done  by  his  legates.  The  emperor  himself  is  the  front  fig- 
ure in  the  assembly.     All  others  are  in  the  background. 

('")  "Life  of  Constantine,"  by  Eusebius,  bjc.  iii.,  chh.  xiii.,  xiv. 
'20 


306  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

Sozomen  says  that  after  Constantine  had  burned  all  the 
complaints  of  the  contending  bishops  against  each  other 
that  had  been  handed  to  him  for  investigation,  he  took 
part  in  the  deliberations  of  the  council.  He  heard  each 
party  for  and  against  Arius,  and,  after  the  condemnation 
of  Arius  by  the  council,  sent  his  followers  into  banishment 
by  an  imperial  decree.  The  "  Confession,"  or  "  Symbol  of 
Faith,"  was  decided  on  with  his  approval.  This  is  not  in- 
serted in  Sozomen's  history,  because  he  thought  "  that  such 
matters  ought  'to  be  kept  secret "  from  "  the  unlearned," 
and  to  be  known  only  "by  disciples  and  their  instruct- 
ors."(")  But  he  nowhere  mentions  any  instructions  from 
Rome,  or  any  participation  by  the  pope's  legates  in  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  council. 

The  account  given  by  Socrates  agrees  with  that  of  Euse- 
bius,  from  whom  it  is  taken,  but  he  gives  the  "  Confession 
of  Faith,"  and  points  out  the  manner  of  its  adoption,  with- 
out any  reference  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome  or  his  legates,  or 
any  instructions  from  him.(") 

Theodoret  is  somewhat  specific  as  to  the  manner  in  which 
the  creed  was  adopted,  predicating  his  statement  upon  the 
authority  of  a  letter  written  by  Athanasius  immediately  aft- 
er the  council  to  the  Christians  of  Africa.  Alluding  to  the 
bishops,  he  says  "  they  all  agreed  in  propounding  "  certain 
declarations  of  faith ;  yet  he  does  not  include  the  Arians 
among  these,  for  they  stated  their  "  conclusions  "  in  such  a 
way  as,  according  to  him,  to  expose  "  their  evil  design  and 
impious  artifice."  He  states  the  final  adoption  of  the  "  Sym- 
bol of  Faith,"  and  gives  also  an  important  letter  from  Euse- 
bius  of  Cesarea,  the  historian,  which  throws  much  additional 
light  upon  the  character  of  the  proceedings,  and  the  person- 
al agency  of  Constantine  in  fixing  the  terms  of  the  formu- 
lary. It  shows,  indeed,  that  the  word  consuhstantial — the 
most  important  and  conspicuous  word  in  the  creed  —  was 
inserted  upon  his  suggestion  alone.  When  the  creed,  as 
agreed  upon  by  the  bishops,  was  laid  before  the  council,  it 
did  not  contain  this  word,  yet  it  is  here  stated  that  it  was 
"fully  approved  by  all;"  and  the  letter  continues:  "No  one 

(")  Sozomen,  bk.  i.,  ch.  xx.  (")  Socrates,  bk.  i.,  ch.  viii. 


CONSTANTINE  DICTATES  THE  CREED.  307 

found  occasion  to  gainsay  it ;  but  our  beloved  emperor  was 
the  first  to  testify  that  it  was  most  orthodox,  and  that  he 
coincided  in  opinion  with  it;  and  he  exhorted  the  others  to 
sign  it,  and  to  receive  all  the  doctrines  it  contained,  with  the 
single  addition  of  one  word — consubstantiaV {^^) 

With  such  facts  as  these  staring  them  full  in  the  face,  it 
is  but  little  less  than  the  boldest  imposture  for  the  papal 
writers  to  pretend,  as  they  do,  that  the  proceedings  of  this 
council  were  controlled  by  instructions  from  Rome,  and  that 
the  formulary  of  the  creed  was  prepared  there  and  forward- 
ed by  the  legates  of  the  pope.  In  what  estimate  can  they 
themselves  hold  the  theory  of  papal  primacy  and  suprema- 
cy when  it  has  to  be  upheld  by  such  wholesale  perversions 
of  history  ? 

The  introduction  of  the  one  word,  consuhstantial^  into 
the  creed  by  an  emperor  who,  whatever  may  have  been  his 
Christian  convictions,  was  not  yet  baptized  into  the  Church, 
led  to  one  of  the  fiercest  and  most  protracted  controversies 
the  Church  ever  had.  The  insertion  of  it,  after  the  assent 
of  all  the  bishops  had  been  obtained  to  a  form  of  creed 
without  it,  shows  the  degree  of  influence  which  Constan- 
tine  had  over  the  council,  how  completely  it  was  the  creat- 
ure of  his  imperial  will,  and  how  idle  and  violative  of  truth 
it  is  to  say  that  he  would  himself  have  yielded,  or  have  per- 
mitted others  to  yield,  to  the  dictation  of  the  Bishop  of 
Rome.  The  latter  may  have  commanded  respect  by  his 
age  and  piety,  but  he  had  no  right  to  command  any  obe- 
dience beyond  the  limits  of  his  own  ecclesiastical  jurisdic- 
tion, which  he  may  have  asserted  himself,  or  which  had  been 
assented  to  by  other  bishops ;  whereas  it  is  well  known  that 
Constantine  so  wore  the  robes  and  wielded  the  imperial  pow- 
er of  Caesar  as  to  brook  no  disobedience  to  his  royal  will, 
whether  exercised  in  the  affairs  of  State  or  Church.  Hav- 
ing convoked  this  council  of  his  own  accord,  he  felt  that  he 
had  the  right  to  overlook,  if  not  to  dictate,  its  proceedings, 
as  the  most  certain  and  expedient  mode  of  bringing  discord- 
ant elements  into  harmony,  and  saving  the  cause  of  Chris- 
tianity from  discomfiture.     If  any  instructions  from  Rome 

(")  Theodoret,  bk.  i.,  chh.  vii^,,  xii. 


308  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

had  been  presented,  he  would  have  heeded  them  or  not,  as 
may  have  suited  his  designs.  That  he  was  master  of  ev- 
ery thing  done  there  is  sufficiently  apparent  from  all  the  pro- 
ceedings ;  and  if  it  were  not,  Theodoret  shows  that  he  was, 
at  another  place.  When  certain  accusations  of  a  criminal 
character  were  made  against  some  of  the  bishops,  and  laid 
before  him,  he  put  them  aside  till  the  close  of  the  council, 
when  he  burned  them  publicly,  and  declared  he  had  never 
read  them,  saying  "  that  the  crimes  of  priests  ought  not  to 
be  made  known  to  the  multitude,  lest  they  should  become 
an  occasion  of  offense  or  of  sin.  He  also  said  that  if  he 
had  detected  a  bishop  in  the  very  act  of  committing  adul- 
tery, he  would  have  thrown  his  imperial  robe  over  the  un- 
lawful deed,  lest  any  should  witness  the  scene,  and  be  there- 
by injured."  (") 

Most  amiable  and  considerate  emperor!  Most  fortunate 
bishops !  Yet  it  ought  not  to  be  supposed  that  any  very 
large  number  of  those  who  were  assembled  in  this  cele- 
brated council  needed  this  kind  of  royal  protection,  as  it  is 
not  to  be  doubted  for  a  moment  that  many  of  them  were 
of  that  class  of  sincere  Christians  in  whose  care  the  cause 
of  true  Christianity  and  genuine  piety  is  at  all  times  safe. 
Those  who  had  control  of  the  proceedings  were,  doubtless, 
in  a  great  degree,  the  instruments  of  Constantine;  while 
such  as  were  really  devoted  to  the  welfare  of  the  Church 
were  left  to  acquiesce,  from  fear  of  the  royal  displeasure,  and 
to  return  to  their  churches,  and  there  regulate,  by  their  ex- 
ample, the  Christian  deportment  of  their  flocks. 

Weninger  makes  another  equally  unsupported  assertion 
when  he  says  that  "at  the  close  of  the  council  all  the  acts 
were  sent  to  Rome  for  confirmation."  His  object  is  to  main- 
tain by  it  the  propositions,  first,  that  the  decrees  of  a  gen- 
eral council  are  not  valid  without  the  approval  of  the  pope ; 
and,  second,  that  this  approval  was  obtained  before  those 
passed  by  the  Council  of  Nice  took  effect.  Nothing  of 
the  kind  then  occurred.  There  is  not  a  word  or  syllable  of 
evidence  to  that  effect. 

Eusebius  says  that,  after  the  council  had  closed,  Constan- 
ce*) Theodoret,  bk.  i.,  ch.  x. 


GENERAL  COUNCILS  INFALLIBLE.  309 

tine  "  gave  information  of  the  proceedings  of  the  synod  to 
those  who  had  not  been  present,  by  a  letter  in  his  own 
handwriting,"  which  letter  he  gives  at  length.  It  is  impe- 
rially addressed  by  "Constantinus  Augustus  to  the  Church- 
es." He  tells  them,  "I  myself  have  undertaken  that  this 
decision  should  meet  the  approval  of  your  sagacities;"  and 
commands  them  to  receive  it  as  a  "  truly  Divine  injunction, 
and  regard  it  as  the  gift  of  God ;"  because  "  whatever  is  de- 
termined in  the  holy  assemblies  of  the  bishops  is  to  be  re- 
garded as  indicative  of  the  Divine  will."  He  does  not  re- 
fer to  the  Bishop  of  Rome  at  all,  either  with  reference  to 
his  approval  or  otherwise.  And  when  counseling  unity  of 
practice  in  regard  to  the  festival  of  Easter,  he  does  not  re- 
fer to  the  practice  at  Rome  alone,  or  to  the  decrees  of  its 
bishops,  or  to  any  other  particular  church,  to  show  what 
that  unity  is,  but  tells  them  that  it  consists  in  the  practice 
which  prevails  in  Rome,  Africa,  Italy,  Egypt,  Spain,  Gaul, 
Britain,  Libya,  Greece,  Asia,  Pontus,  and  Cilicia;  thus  ig- 
noring, to  all  intents  and  purposes,  the  claim  of  Roman 
primacy,  if  any  such  were  then  made.  Eusebius  also  alludes 
to  a  letter  from  the  emperor  to  the  Egyptians  as  "  confirm- 
ing and  sanctioning  the  decrees  of  the  council."(") 

Sozomen  alludes  to  the  letter  mentioned  by  Eusebius, 
written  by  the  emperor  to  the  churches,  as  well  as  that  to 
the  Alexandrians,  and  says  he  "  urged  them  to  receive  unan- 
imously the  exposition  of  faith  which  had  been  set  forth  by 
the  council;"  making  no  reference  to  the  pope's  approval. (^^) 
Socrates  gives  this  letter  to  the  Alexandrians,  and  another 
to  the  "  bishops  and  people,"  as  well  as  that  to  "  the  church- 
es." They  all  set  forth  the  binding  obligation  of  the  de- 
crees of  the  council,  without  any  reference  to  the  pope,  or 
his  connection  with  them  in  any  way.(")  And  Theodoret 
states  the  same  facts,  and  inserts  the  same  letters.  (^'')  It  is 
not  pretended  by  any  of  these  authors  that  the  decrees  of 
the  council  were  ever  submitted  to  the, pope,  or  that  it  was 
supposed  to  be  necessary.      The  very  reverse  is  true,  both 


(^^)  "Life  of  Constantine," by  Eusebius,  bk.  iii.,  chh.  xvi.-xxi.,  xxiii. 
(^®)  Sozomen,  bk.  i.,  eh.  xxv,  (")  Socrates,  bk.  l,  ch.  ix. 

(^^)  Theodoret,  bk.  i.,  clih.  ix.,  x. 


310  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

as  it  regards  the  fact  and  the  universal  sentiment  then  pre- 
vailing. However  much  Rome  may  have  desired  her  tri- 
umph over  the  old  apostolic  churches,  she  had  not  then 
achieved  it. 

The  reference  to  the  proceedings  of  the  council,  and  to 
the  eighteenth  and  twenty  -ninth  canons,  made  by  Wenin- 
ger,  to  show  that  it  fully  recognized  the  primacy  of  Rome 
and  the  infallibility  of  the  pope,  not  only  does  not  help  him 
out  of  the  difficulty,  but  gets  him  deeper  into  it.  We  give 
him  the  benefit  of  his  statement  in  his  own  words.  He 
says: 

"A  yet  more  cogent  proof  is  furnished  us  by  the  very 
acts  of  the  council  itself  The  eighteenth  canon  rules  that 
the  Church,  faithful  to  the  teachings  of  the  apostles,  has 
reserved  all  cases  of  importance  to  the  arbitration  of  the 
Holy  See :  *Cujus  dispositioni  omnes  majores  causas  antiqua 
apostolorum  auctoritas  reservavit.'  Can  there  be  any  case 
of  greater  importance  —  'major  causa'- — than  a  question 
about  matters  of  faith  ?"('') 

Now,  it  so  happens  —  unfortunately  for  this  author  and 
the  cause  he  supports  at  the  cost  of  so  much  candor  —  that 
there  is  not  one  word  in  the  eighteenth  canon  of  the  Coun- 
cil of  Nice  which  the  most  skilled  and  practiced  ingenuity 
can  torture  into  what  he  has  here  alleged.  On  the  contra- 
ry, the  sentiment  and  action  of  the  council,  so  far  as  it  act- 
ed at  all,  was  precisely  the  reverse.  The  eighteenth  canon 
is  not  even  upon  the  subject  referred  to,  and  makes  no  ref- 
erence to  it  whatever.  There  are  no  such  words  to  be  found 
in  it  as  "  Cujus  dispositioni  omnes  majores  causas  antiqua 
apostolorum  auctoritas  reservavit."  It  has  relation  to  pres- 
byters receiving  the  eucharist  from  deacons,  and  is  in  these 
words,  as  translated  by  Boyle : 

"  Canon  XVIII.  Of  Presbyters  receiving  the  Eucharist 
from  Deacons. —  It  having  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the 
great  and  holy  council,  that  in  certain  places  and  cities  the 
eucharist  is  administered  by  deacons  to  presbyters;  and 
neither  law  nor  custom  permitting  that  those  who  have  no 
authority  to  offer  the  body  of  Christ  should  deliver  it  to 

C»)  Weninger,  p.  106. 


EQUALITY  OF  CHURCHES  AT  NICE.  311 

those  who  have;  and  it  being  also  understood  that  some 
deacons  receive  the  eucharist  before  even  the  bishops,  let, 
therefore,  all  these  irregularities  be  removed,  and  let  the 
deacons  remain  within  their  own  limits,  knowing  that  they 
are  ministers  of  the  bishops,  and  inferior  to  the  presbyters. 
Let  them  receive  the  eucharist  in  their  proper  place,  after 
the  presbyters,  whether  it  be  administered  by  a  bishop  or  a 
presbyter.  Nor  is  it  permitted  to  deacons  to  sit  among  the 
presbyters,  as  that  is  against  rule  and  order.  If  any  one 
will  not  obey,  even  after  these  regulations,  let  him  desist 
from  the  ministry. "(") 

If  it  be  objected  that  the  translation  here  used  is  by  a 
Protestant  divine,  it  is  answered  that  to  the  same  effect  is 
that  of  the  learned  Du  Pin,  a  doctor  of  the  Sarbonne,  and 
Regius  Professor  of  Divinity  at  Paris.  (®^)  And  the  great 
Tillemont,  whose  authority  as  a  Roman  Catholic  historian 
is  unquestioned,  speaking  of  it,  says :  "  The  eighteenth  can- 
on humbles  the  pride  of  some  deacons  who  administered  the 
eucharist  to  priests.  It  likewise  forbids  them  to  sit  among 
the  priests — that  is,  to  sit  in  the  church  as  priests."(^^) 

Here  it  is  abundantly  shown  that  there  could  not,  by  any 
possibility,  have  been  in  this  eighteenth  canon  any  thing 
of  the  kind  alleged  by  Weninger,  and  that  his  statement 
amounts  to  an  entire  perversion  of  its  meaning — that  it  is; 
in  fact,  a  palpable  misrepresentation  of  it.  Whether  orig- 
inated by  him  or  some  other  defender  of  the  papacy,  is  of 
no  consequence,  since  the  forgery  and  its  object  are  both 
apparent.  That  it  is  a  forgery,  like  the  "  False  Decretals," 
any  body  who  will  take  the  pains  to  investigate  may  easily 
see.  The  Council  of  Nice  did  not  intend,  in  any  part  of  its 
proceedings,  to  confer  supremacy  over  the  other  churches 
upon  that  at  Rome,  or  upon  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  or  to  rec- 
ognize it  as  existing.  The  jurisdiction  of  the  several  church- 
es, as  established  by  "ancient  usage,"  was  defined  by  the 
sixth  canon,  which  is  thus  given  by  Du  Pin  :(^^) 

("«)  "  Historical  Views  of  the  Council  of  Nice,"  by  Boyle  (1836),  p.  62. 
These  "views"  may  also  be  found  attached  to  Cruse's  Eusebius,  Boston 
ed.,  1836. 

O  Du  Pin,  vol.  ii.,  p.  253.  C)  Tillemont,  vol.  ii.,  p.  644. 

(^^)  The  Nicene  Council  did  not,  in  the  sixth,canon,  consider  the  question 


312  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

"  We  ordain,  that  the  ancient  custom  shall  be  observed 
which  gives  power  to  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria  over  all  the 
provinces  of  Egypt,  Lybia,  and  Pentapolis,  because  the  Bish- 
op of  Rome  has  the  like  jurisdiction  overall  the  suburbicary 
regions  (for  this  addition  must  be  supplied  out  of  Ruffinus) ; 
we  would  likewise  have  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the 
Church  of  Antioch  and  the  other  churches  preserved ;  but 
these  rights  ought  not  to  prejudice  those  of  the  metropoli- 
tans. If  any  one  is  ordained  without  the  consent  of  the 
metropolitan,  the  council  declares  that  he  is  no  bishop ;  but 
if  any  one  is  canonically  chosen  by  the  suffrage  of  almost 
all  the  bishops  of  the  province,  and  if  there  are  but  one  or 
two  of  a  contrary  opinion,  the  suffrages  of  the  far  greater 
number  ought  to  carry  it  for  the  ordination  of  those  partic- 
ular persons."(") 

Tillemont  says  it  was  the  opinion  of  Baronius  that  the  ne- 
cessity for  this  sixth  canon  grew  out  of  the  resistance  by 
Melitius,  the  Bishop  of  Lycopolis,  and  founder  of  the  sect 
called  Melitians,  to  the  authority  of  the  Bishop  of  Alexan- 
dria ;  and  thus  refers  to  the  canon : 


of  primacy  at  all.  Referring  to  that  part  of  it  which  points  out  such  rights 
of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  as  were  analogous  to  those  of  the  bishops  of  Alex- 
landria  and  Antioch,  Dr.  Hefele  says:  "It  is  evident  that  the  council  has 
not  in  view  here  the  primacy  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  over  the  whole  Church, 
but  simply  his  power  as  a  patriarch." — History  of  the  Christian  Councils, 
by  Hefele,  p.  394.  Elsewhere  he  quotes  approvingly  from  another:  "The 
Council  of  Nicsea  did  not  speak  of  the  primacy." — Ibid.,  p.  397.  He  also 
says  the  sixth  canon  "does  not  consider  the  pope  as  primate  of  the  Uni- 
versal Church,  nor  as  simple  Bishop  of  Rome,  but  it  treats  him  as  one  of  the 
great  metropolitans  who  had  not  merely  one  province,  but  several,  under  their 
jurisdiction." — Ibid.,  p.  397.  St.  Augustin  spoke  of  Pope  Innocent  I.  as 
"President  of  the  Church  of  the  West"  — not  as  primate  of  the  whole 
Church. — Ibid.,Tp.  399.  St.  Jerome  considered  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria 
as  Patriarch  of  Egypt,  and  the  Bishop  of  Rome  as  Patriarch  of  the  West, 
each  having  authority  only  in  his  own  patriarchate. — Ibid.,  p.  400.  The 
Synod  of  Aries,  in  314,  regarded  the  Bishop  of  Rome  as  having  jurisdiction 
only  over  several  dioceses.-w-Ibid.  Justinian  spoke  of  the  ecclesiastical  di- 
vision of  the  world,  in  his  day,  as  divided  into  five  patriarchates — Rome,  Con- 
stantinople, Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  Jei-usalera — each  independent  of  the 
other. — Ibid. 

(^)  Du  Pin,  vol.  ii.,  p.  252.      Boyle's  translation  (p.  59)  is  substantially 
the  same,  though  somewhat  different  in  phraseology. 


POPE'S  JURISDICTION  LIMITED  TO  ROME.  313 

'*This  canon  orders  that  the  rights  and  pre-eminences 
which  some  churches  had  of  old,  as  those  of  Alexandria  and 
of  Antioch,  should  be  preserved.  It  regulates  particularly 
the  jurisdiction  of  that  of  Alexandria  over  Egypt,  Lybia, 
and  Pentapolis,  by  that  which  the  Church  of  Rome  had." 

He  then  proceeds  to  show  that  KuflSnus  confines  the  ju- 
risdiction of  the  Church  of  Rome  to  the  "  suburbicary 
churches"  only;  and,  thus  limited,  he  considers  it  to  have 
included  no  other  churches  than  those  existing  in  Italy,  Sici- 
ly, Sardinia,  and  Corsica.  (^^) 

This  canon,  as  interpreted  by  both  these  great  Roman 
Catholic  authors,  as  well  as  by  Boyle,  means  this,  and  noth- 
ing more:  that  as  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria  had  power  and 
jurisdiction  over  the  churches  in  the  provinces  of  Egypt, 
Lybia,  and  Pentapolis,  and  the  Bishop  of  Rome  had  like 
power  and  jurisdiction  over  those  in  the  diocese,  or  suburbs, 
of  Rome,  so  should  the  Bishop  of  Antioch  and  the  bishops 
of  the  other  churches  have  like  power  and  jurisdiction,  each 
within  his  provincial  limits,  each  province  being  required  to 
preserve,  according  to  the  ancient  custom,  the  rights  of  its 
metropolitan  church.  There  is  not  one  word  about  the  ju- 
risdiction of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  beyond  his  diocese;  not  a 
word  about  his  authority  o.ver  any  other  churches  but  those 
within  the  Roman  suburbs;  not  a  word  about  appeals  to 
him  in  cases  of  disagreement  about  the  selection  and  ordi- 
nation of  bishops  outside  his  provincial  limits ;  not  a  word 
about  the  Church  at  Rome  as  the  "  mother  and  mistress  of 
all  the  churches ;"  not  a  word  about  the  "  Holy  See "  of 
Rome ;  not  a  word  about  any  obligation  to  obey  the  Bishop 
of  Rome,  any  more  than  the  bishops  of  other  churches  ;  and 
not  a  word  about  the  pope,  either  in  his  pretended  capacity 
of  "  Head  of  the  Church,"  or  any  other.  With  all  this  be- 
fore him,  it  was  necessary  that  this  author  should  have  been 
trained  in  the  Jesuit  school,  in  order  to  lit  him  for  the  task 
of  unblushingly  shutting  his  eyes  to  it. 

But  Du  Pin  leaves  no  room  for  doubt  about  the  meaning 
of  the  council,  or  the  interpretation  of  its  decrees,  when  he 
says :  "This  canon,  being  thus  explained,  has  no  difficulty 

C^)  Tillemont,  voi.  ii.,  p./)40. 


314  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

in  it.  It  does  not  oppose  the  primacy  of  the  Church  of 
Rome,  but  neither  does  it  establish  it.  It  preserves  the 
great  sees  their  ancient  privileges — that  is,  the  jurisdiction 
or  authority  which  they  had  over  many  provinces,  which 
was  afterward  called  the  jurisdiction  of  the  patriarch  or  ex- 
arch. In  this  sense  it  is  that  it  compares  the  Church  of 
Rome  to  the  Church  of  Alexandria,  by  considering  them  as 
patriarchal  churches.  It  continues,  also,  to  the  Church  of 
Antioch,  and  all  other  great  churches,  whatsoever  rights 
they  could  have  ;  but,  lest  their  authority  should  be  prejudi- 
cial to  the  ordinary  metropolitans,  who  were  subject  to  their 
jurisdiction,  the  council  confirms  what  had  been  ordained 
in  the  fourth  canon  concerning  the  authority  of  metropoli- 
tans in  the  ordination  of  bishops. "C^) 

It  is  important  to  observe  scrutinizingly  this  language  of 
this  great  author,  for  it  is  full  of  meaning.  He  says  this 
canon  "does  not  oppose  the  primacy  of  the  Church  of 
Rome,  but  neither  does  it  establish  it."  The  reason  is  plain: 
no  such  primacy  was  then  asserted^  or  had  then  been  heard 
of,  except  in  the  pretenses  set  up  by  a  few  of  the  popes, 
or  would  have  been  tolerated  by  the  bishops  of  the  other 
churches.  For  these  reasons,  the  canon  was  silent  on  the 
subject.  But  although  it  was  siknt  in  words,  it  rebuked  in 
spirit  this  ambitious  pretense,  by  defining  distinctly  the  ju- 
risdiction of  each  one  of  the  "  great  churches,"  and  so  de- 
fined it  that  one  should  not  be  considered  greater  or  more 
privileged  than  another.  No  thought  of  primacy  or  superi- 
ority entered  the  minds  of  any  of  the  leading  bishops  of  the 
council,  and  if  there  had  been  one  there  to  claim  it  for  any 
particular  church,  he  would  have  been  sternly  and  indig- 
nantly rebuked.  The  whole  history  of  those  times,  and  ev- 
ery thing  known  of  this  council,  proves  this,  and  whatsoev- 
er may  be  palmed  oflT  upon  the  superstitious  and  credulous 
part  of  the  world  to  establish  the  contrary  is  false  and  forged, 

(^®)  Du  Pin,  vol.  ii.,  p.  252.  The  fourth  canon  provides  that  a  bishop 
should  be  ordained  by  all  the  bishops,  except  where  it  is  difficult  to  assemble 
them,  etc.,  when  it  may  be  done  by  three,  with  the  consent  of  the  others  by 
letter— its  validity  depending  upon  the  metropolitan  bishop  of  the  diocese ; 
which  means  that  it  shall  not  depend  upon  the  consent  of  the  Bishop  of 
Rome,  unless  in  his  diocese. — Ibid. 


PRIMACY  NOT  CONFERRED  AT  NICE.  315 

manufactured  with  the  same  disregard  of  truth  and  history 
as  were  the  pseudo-Isidorian  and  other  fabricated  decretals. 

The  metropolitan  bishops  referred  to  in  these  canons  had 
a  recognized  superiority  over  the  other  bishops  of  their  prov- 
inces. Originally  the  bishops  had  assistants,  or  coadjutors, 
who  aided  them  in  the  discharge  of  their  episcopal  duties, 
when  disabled  by  old  age  or  infirmity.  It  is  supposed  that 
some  of  these  had  episcopal  ordination,  and  that  others  were 
only  presbyters ;  but,  in  the  end,  they  were  all  recognized 
as  bishops,  with  limited  and  distinctly  marked  jurisdiction. 
This  difficulty  was  remedied,  however,  when  one  was  chosen 
superior  to  the  rest,  and  invested  with  certain  powers  and 
privileges  for  the  good  of  the  whole.  He  became  the  pri- 
mate, or  metropolitan,  that  is,  the  principal  bishop  of  the 
province  to  which  he  belonged.  Eusebius  speaks  of  Titus 
as  superintendent,  that  is,  metropolitan,  of  the  churches  in 
Crete ;(")  and  Chrysostom  says  that  Timothy  was  intrusted 
with  the  government  of  the  Church  throughout  Asia.(^'') 
And  it  was  in  this  sense  alone  that  the  jurisdiction  and  su- 
periority of  metropolitan  bishops  was  spoken  of  by  the 
Council  of  Nice.  Each  province,  or  diocese,  had  its  own 
metropolitan  bishop,  or  primate,  and  the  idea  that  the 
Church  at  Rome  was,  as  it  regarded  the  others,  the  metro- 
politan church,  and  its  bishop  primate  over  all,  never  was 
asserted  in  this  council,  or  claimed  by  any  body  there,  so 
far  as  any  true  history  shows,  or  tends  to  show. 

Weninger,  pursuing  his  favorite  idea,  and  seemingly  re- 
solved that  it  shall  be  no  fault  of  his  if  it  is  not  maintained, 
as  the  foundation  upon  which  the  claim  of  papal  supremacy 
must  rest,  says  also  : 

"  The  twenty-nmth  canon  [of  Nice]  reads  as  follows :  *  The 
incumbent  of  the  Roman  See,  acting  as  Christ's  vicegerent 
in  the  government  of  the  Church,  is  the  head  of  the  patri- 
archs, as  well  as  Peter  himself  was.'  *  Ille,  qui  tenet  sedem 
Romaniim,  caput  est  omnium  Patriarcharum  cicut  Petrus,  ut 
qui  sit  Vicarius  Christi  super  cunctum  Ecclesiam."(^®) 

(^■')  Eusebius,  bk,  iii,,  ch.  iv. 

Q'^)  Bingham's  "Antiquities  of  the  Christian  Church,"  bk.  ii.,  chh.  xv., 
xvi.,  where  this  subject  is  fully  discussed. 

C'^)  Weninger,  p.  107.  » 


316  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

It  has  already  been  clearly  and  sufficiently  shown  that  no 
such  matters  as  are  involved  in  this  statement  were  consid- 
ered or  acted  on  by  the  Council  of  Nice  at  all,  in  so  far  as 
either  of  the  canons  referred  to  is  concerned.  But,  after 
perverting,  and  misquoting,  and  mutilating  these,  this  au- 
thor overleaps  every  possible  difficulty  at  a  single  bound, 
and  adds  a  canon  which  was  never  enacted  by  the  council ! 
There  were  only  twenty  canons  in  all  passed  by  the  Coun- 
cil of  Nice  !  And  such  is  the  undoubted  "  truth  of  history." 
Neither  Sozomen  nor  Socrates  give  the  number.  Theodoret 
gives  the  number  as  twenty.  These  are  his  words:  "The 
bishops  then  returned  to  the  council,  and  drew  up  twenty 
laws  to  regulate  the  discipline  of  the  Church."('°)     Du  Pin 


"These  rules,  which  are  called  canons,  are  in  number 
twenty,  and  there  never  were  more  genuine,  though  some 
modern  authors  have  added  many  more."(") 

There  is  this  note  explanatory  of  this  text  of  Du  Pin : 
"Theodoret  and  Ruffinus  mention  only  these  twenty  can- 
ons :  though  the  latter  reckons  twenty-two  of  them,  yet  he 
owned  no  more,  because  he  divided  two  of  them.  The  bish- 
ops of  Africa  found  but  twenty  of  them,  after  they  had  in- 
quired very  diligently  all  over  the  East  for  all  the  canons 
made  by  the  Council  of  Nice.  Dionysius  Exiguus,  and  all 
the  other  collectors  of  canons,  have  acknowledged  but  these 
twenty.  The  Arabic  canons  which  Ecchellensis  published 
under  the  name  of  the  Council  of  Nice  can  not  belong  to 
this  Council."(") 

Referring  again  to  "  the  twenty  canons,"  he  continues : 
"  I  do  not  think  that  there  ever  were  any  other  acts  of 
this  council,  since  they  were  unknown  to  all  the  ancient  his- 
torians. There  is  a  Latin  letter  of  this  synod  to  St.  Silves- 
ter [then  Bishop  of  Rome]  extant,  but  it  is  supposititious, 
which  has  no  authority,  and  which  has  all  the  marks  of  for- 
gery that  any  writing  can  have,  as  well  as  the  pretended 
answer  of  St.  Silvester.  Neither  is  that  council  genuine, 
which  is  said  to  have  been  assembled  at  Rome  by  St.  Sil- 

('")  Theodoret,  bk.  i.,  ch.  viii.  (")  Du  Pin,  vol.  ii.,  p.  252. 

(")  Ibid.,X\QtQ(k). 


A  FOUGED  CANON  OF  THE  COUNCIL  OF  NICE.        3lY 

vester  for  the  confirmation  of  the  Council  of  Nice.  The 
canons  of  this  council  are  also  forged,  which  contain  rules 
contrary  to  the  practice  of  the  time,  and  which  it  had  been 
impossible  to  observe."  (") 

Tillemont  is  not  less  explicit.  In  his  "History  of  the 
Council  of  Nice,"  he  explains  the  contents  of  the  twenty 
canons,  and  says: 

"These  are  the  twenty  canons  of  the  famous  council, 
which  are  come  to  our  hands,  and  are  the  only  ones  which 
were  made.  At  least,  none  of  the  ancients  reckoned  them 
more  than  twenty.  Theodoret  mentions  no  more.  When 
the  Church  of  Africa  sent  to  the  churches  of  Alexandria, 
Antioch,  and  Constantinople  for  the  canons  of  Nice,  they 
sent  them  only  the  same  twenty  which  we  still  have ;  and 
the  twenty -two  of  Ruffinus  contain  no  more  than  these 
twenty,  only  they  are  divided  after  another  manner;  inso- 
much that  there  is  no  room  to  believe  that  any  more  were 
raade."C*) 

But  Tillemont  was  fully  informed  of  the  efforts  that  had 
been  made— like  that  of  Weninger— to  add  to  these  canons, 
in  order  to  build  up  and  support  the  papal  system.  And, 
as  a  faithful  historian  and  honest  member  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  he  felt  himself  constrained  to  expose  and 
denounce  them.     He  says  : 

"  We  find  many  other  determinations  attributed  to  the 
Council  of  Nice,  in  the  pretended  letters  of  the  popes  Mark, 
Julias,  and  Felix ;  in  a  letter  from  St.  Athanasius  to  Pope 
Mark;  in  Gelasius  Cyzienus ;  and  in  an  Arabic  collection 
given  us  by  Turrianus.  But  there  is  nothing  more  plain 
than  that  all  these  are  apocryphal,  without  excepting  Gela- 
sius, who  we  know  gives  us  very  often  suspected  pieces."(") 
And  he  does  not  spare  one  of  the  infallible  (!)  popes  who 
engaged  in  this  nefarious  attempt  to  add  to  these  canons 
by  forgery,  in  order  to  affirm  the  right  of  appeal  to  Rome ! 
He  says : 

"Pope  Zosimus  alleges  two  canons  of  the  Council  of 
Nice,  which  allowed  bishops  and  even  other  ecclesiastics  to 

(")  Yfn  Pin,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  253,  254.     See,  also,  note  (/). 

C*)  Tillemont,  vol.  ii.,  p.  645.  .  ('')  Ibid.,  p.  646. 


318  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWEE. 

appeal  to  the  pope.  But  the  Church  of  Africa  prov'd  these 
canons  to  be  forg'd ;  neither  Zosimus  nor  his  successors  were 
able  to  prove  the  contrary ;  and  it  is  acknowledged  now 
that  these  canons  belong  to  the  Council  of  Sardica,(")  and 
not  to  that  of  Nice."(") 

It  is  not  often  that  so  much  convincing  evidence  is  found 
accumulating  upon  one  point  as  there  is  upon  this.  So  over- 
whelming is  it,  that  no  writer  of  the  present  day,  unless  he 
be  a  Jesuit,  will  venture  to  hazard  the  loss  of  his  reputa- 
tion for  veracity  by  assigning  any  other  than  twenty  as  the 
number  of  Nicene  canons.  One  of  the  most  recent  inves- 
tigators of  this  question  among  the  learned  divines  of  En- 
gland is  Dr.  E.  B.  Pusey,  who  published,  a  few  years  ago,  a 
history  of  all  the  councils,  from  the  assembly  at  Jerusalem, 
in  51,  to  the  Council  of  Constantinople,  in  381.  Having  be- 
fore him  all  the  authorities  bearing  on  the  question,  he  fixes 
the  number  of  Nicene  canons  at  twenty,  without  seeming 
to  suppose  the  matter  debatable.  (^*)  Yet,  directly  in  the 
face  of  all  this,  this  Jesuit  defender  of  the  primacy  and  infal- 
libility of  the  pope  unblushingly  publishes  a  false  and  forged 
canon,  which  he  calls  the  twenty -ninth^  to  prove  that  the 
Council  of  Nice  thereby  declared  the  Bishop  of  Rome  to 
be  "Christ's  vicegerent  in  the  government  of  the  Church," 
and  "  the  head  of  the  patriarchs  as  well  as  Peter  was !" 
Can  bold  effrontery  be  carried  further?  The  forgery,  when- 
ever and  by  whomsoever  made,  is  bold  and  entire,  made  out 
of  whole  cloth.  There  is  not  a  single  word  by  any  of  the 
early  "  fathers  "  that  can  be  tortured,  by  the  utmost  ingenu- 
ity, into  such  a  meaning.  On  the  contrary,  we  have  seen 
that  where  the  Bishop  of  Rome  is  spoken  of  in  the  sixth 
canon — and  he  is  referred  to  in  no  other — he  is  merely  call- 
ed by  that  title,  as  all  the  other  bishops  are  called  by  their 
titles,  without  any  indication  of  preference  to  him  over  the 
others.  He  is  never  spoken  of  as  "  Christ's  vicegerent,"  or 
as  "head  of  the  patriarchs,"  nor  is  the  Church  of  Rome 
ever  alluded  to  as  the  "Apostolic  Church."     It  can  not  be 

C^)  Which  was  not  an  ecumenical  or  general  council. 
(")  Tillemont,  vol,  ii.,  p.  647. 

(^*)  Pusey 's  "  Councils  of  the  Church,"  p.  112.  See,  also,  "  History  of  the 
Christian  Councils,"  by  Hefele,  pp.  262,  434. 


PAPAL  INFALLIBILITY  UNKNOWN  AT  NICE.         319 

too  frequently  repeated  that  this  twenty- ninth  canon  is  a 
downright  forgery  —  one  by  which  the  w^orld  has  been  al- 
ready sufficiently  imposed  on.  It  has  been  clung  to  by  the 
supporters  of  the  pope,  as  against  the  rights  of  the  whole 
Church,  because  they  know  that  if  deprived  of  evidence 
that  the  first  ecumenical  council  sustained  their  theory  of 
papal  infallibility,  it  necessarily  falls  to  the  ground.  That 
it  did  not  sustain  it,  and  that  there  was  no  pretense  of  its 
existence  then,  is  absolutely  incontestable. 


320  THE PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

Temporal  Power. — None  possessed  by  Peter. — Alliance  between  Pepin  and 
Zachary. — Double  Conspiracy. — The  Pope  released  the  Allegiance  of  the 
French  People. — Made  Pepin  King. — The  Lombards  in  Italy. — The  Pope 
bargained  with  Pepin,  and  was  guilty  of  Revolt  against  the  Empire. — Pep- 
in seized  Territory  from  the  Lombards,  and  gave  it  to  the  Pope.  —  Both 
were  Revolutionists  and  Traitors. — The  Pope  usurped  what  belonged  to 
the  Empire. — Pepin  did  not  conquer  Rome. — The  Divine  Right  of  Kings. 
— Pepin's  Second  Visit. — Pope  sent  Letters  to  him  from  the  Virgin  Mary, 
Peter,  etc. — He  re-affirmed  his  Gift  to  the  Pope. — Charlemagne. — Adri- 
an I. —  He  absolves  the  Franks  from  all  Crimes  in  Bavaria. — Makes 
Charlemagne  Emperor. —  He  completes  the  Papal  Rebellion  against  the 
Empire,  —  Charlemagne  confirmed  Pepin's  Gift, —  He  did  not  grant  any 
Temporal  Dominion  in  Rome. — He  dictated  the  Filioque  in  the  Creed. 

All  inquiry  into  the  origin  and  history  of  the  temporal 
power  of  the  popes  is  necessarily  attended  with  difficulty. 
It  often  requires  a  very  discriminating  judgment  to  sepa- 
rate fact  from  conjecture  —  that  which  is  true  from  myths 
and  fables.  One  reason  for  this  is  found  in  the  fact  that 
the  papal  writers  are  not  agreed  among  themselves,  either 
in  reference  to  its  real  source,  the  time  of  its  origin,  or 
the  precise  occasion  and  manner  of  its  recognition  by  the 
Church.  This  of  itself  excites  in  an  intelligent  mind  a  rea- 
sonable doubt  of  its  legitimacy ;  for,  however  derived,  there 
would  be,  if  it  were  legitimate,  some  landmarks  to  verify  its 
title.  If  it  were  divine,  as  Pius  IX.  asserts,  there  would  be, 
undoubtedly,  some  word  or  act  of  Christ,  or  of  his  apostles, 
or  of  the  primitive  Christians  during  the  first  centuries,  to 
attest  a  fact  of  so  much  importance,  especially  as  it  is  now 
required  that  it  shall  be  accepted  as  a  necessary  part  of  the 
true  faith.  If  conferred  by  the  nations,  to  preserve  them- 
selves from  anarchy,  some  distinct  historic  record  would 
have  been  made  of  it,  as  a  guide  to  future  ages.  In  the  ab- 
sence of  any  convincing  proof  upon  these  points,  the  impar- 
tial mind  will  naturally  run  into  the  conclusion  that  its  ori- 
gin was,  at  least,  suspicious.     And  if  it  is  found  that  it  had 


PETER  CLAIMED  NO  PRIMACY.  321 

no  existence  in  the  Apostolic  Age,  and  was  not  recognized 
as  a  part  of  the  early  Christian  system,  this  other  conclusion 
must  inevitably  follow  :  that  it  is  the  product  of  human  am- 
bition, resting  upon  authority  which  the  popes  have  wrench- 
ed from  the  nations  by  illegitimate  means,  and  not  upon  any 
divinely  conferred  upon  Peter  or  the  Church  of  Rome. 

When  the  apostle  Peter,  in  anticipation  of  the  approach- 
ing end  of  his  life,  wrote  to  the  Christians  of  Asia  Minor,  he 
affectionately  admonished  the  elders  or  ancients  as  an  equal, 
not  as  a  superior  in  the  papal  sense;  and  was  careful  to 
tell  them  that,  in  feeding  their  flocks,  they  should  not  be 
"  lords  over  God's  heritage  " — or,  as  the  Douay  version  has 
it,  should  not  be  "  domineering  over  the  clergy  " — but  that 
all  Christians,  old  and  young,  should  be  clothed  with  "  hu- 
mility." He  claimed  to  be  only  an  elder  himself,  and  as- 
sumed no  authority  whatsoever  beyond  that  possessed  by 
other  apostles  —  the  authority  to  counsel  and  advise  those 
to  whom  he  wrote,  that  they  should  not  "  be  led  away  with 
the  error  of  the  wicked,"  or  fall  from  their  "  own  steadfast- 
ness." With  this  fact  kept  in  our  minds,  we  shall  be  the 
better  able  to  understand  the  history  already  detailed,  and 
to  interpret  that  which  follows. 

Glancing,  then,  at  the  centuries  immediately  following  the 
age  of  Constantine,  we  find  nothing  better  established  than 
that  the  thrones  of  the  European  nations  were  disposed  of 
by  fraud,  violence,  and  bloodshed.  They  were  at  the  mercy 
of  those  monarchs  who  had  the  heaviest  legions  and  were 
the  most  skillful  in  crime,  especially  those  who  were  adepts 
in  murder  and  assassination.  By  these  means  one  line  of 
kings  was  terminated  and  another  established,  as  interest  or 
policy  dictated,  the  people  all  the  while  being  transferred 
from  master  to  master,  with  no  other  change  in  the  charac- 
ter of  their  slavery  than  that  which  arose  out  of  a  change 
of  tyrants.  Clovis  the  Great,  who  terminated  the  domin- 
ion of  pagan  Rome  in  Gaul  by  the  battle  of  Soissons,  in  the 
year  486,  established  the  French  monarchy  and  the  Mero- 
vingian line  of  its  kings.  His  descendants,  by  regular  he- 
reditary succession,  held  the  crown  for  more  than  two  cent- 
uries and  a  half.  Childeric  HI.  was  the  last  king  of  that 
line;  and  when  we  reach  the  termination  of  his  reign  we  be- 

21 


322  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

gin  to  stand  on  solid  ground  in  our  inquiries  into  the  origin 
of  the  temporal  power.  The  incidents  connected  with  that 
event  are  inseparably  associated  also  with  the  growth  of  the 
papacy,  and  in  no  other  way  than  by  an  accurate  under- 
standing of  them  can  we  see  how  its  enormous  power  has 
been  acquired — how,  by  the  successful  union  of  Church  and 
State,  the  divine  right  to  govern  the  nations,  and  to  dispose 
of  crowns  and  peoples,  has  been  established  and  perpetuated. 
Childeric  III.  was  the  legitimate  heir  to  the  throne  of 
France,  and  held  it  by  virtue  of  the  established  and  recog- 
nized law  of  the  monarchy,  there  having  been  no  break  in 
the  regular  line  of  succession  from  Clovis  for  two  hundred 
and  fifty  years.  Pepin,  son  of  Charles  Martel,  held  the  of- 
fice of  "  mayor  of  the  palace,"  which  placed  him  next  to, 
but  not  upon,  the  throne.  For  fifty  or  sixty  years  his  fam- 
ily had  furnished  to  France  some  of  the  most  distinguished 
leaders  of  her  armies,  and  Pepin  was  in  no  sense  inferior  to 
any  who  had  preceded  him.  Childeric  was  a  feeble  prince, 
but  he  was  the  lawful  king;  and  Pepin,  stimulated  by  his 
ambition,  conceived  the  purpose  of  supplanting  him,  and 
placing  the  crown  upon  his  own  head.  The  plan,  how- 
ever, was  more  easily  formed  than  executed,  as,  notwith- 
standing his  effeminacy,  Childeric  was  esteemed  on  the 
ground  of  his  being  an  immediate  descendant  of  the  great 
Clovis.  This  fact  forbade  any  resort  to  direct  force  by 
Pepin,  but  his  genius  enabled  him  to  contrive  other  effect- 
ive means  —  the  first  of  the  kind  known  in  history.  Like 
all  the  descendants  of  Charles  Martel,  he  was  a  champion 
of  Christianity,  and  sympathized  with  the  popes  in  their  ef- 
forts to  terminate  their  allegiance  to  the  Eastern  emperors; 
and  hence  he  conceived  the  idea  of  bringing  to  his  aid  the 
authority  of  the  Church  of  Rome  to  enable  him  to  accom- 
plish his  ambitious  plans.  He  therefore  sent  embassadors  to 
Pope  Zachary,  soliciting  him  to  employ  this  authority  to  re- 
lease the  people  of  France  from  their  allegiance  to  Childer- 
ic, in  direct  disregard  of  the  laws  of  France,  and  to  trans- 
fer the  crown  to  him.(')     What  had  the  Church  of  Rome, 

C)  "Milman's  Gibbon's  Rome,"  vol.  v.,  p.  28;  "Latin  Christianity,"  by 
Milman,  vol.  ii.,  p.  410;  "  History  of  France,"  by  Michelet,  vol.  i.,  p.  Ill; 
"  History  of  France,"  by  Parke  Godwin,  p.  393. 


CONSPIRACY  OF  PEPIN  AND  THE  POPE.  323 

or  its  pope,  to  do  with  the  internal  and  domestic  affairs  of 
France  ?  or  with  the  allegiance  of  the  people  of  France  to 
the  legitimate  possessor  of  its  throne  ?  Unquestionably  there 
is  no  other  fair  construction  to  be  put  upon  the  conduct  of 
Pepin  than  that  it  was  an  invitation  to  the  pope  to  become 
a  joint  revolutionary  conspirator  with  him  against  the  law- 
ful government  of  France.  And  both  Pepin  and  Pope 
Zachary  so  understood  it,  as  is  manifest  from  their  subse- 
quent conduct,  especially  from  the  promptness  with  which 
the  latter  interfered  in  behalf  of  the  former  by  the  employ- 
ment of  his  ecclesiastical  power  of  absolution.  At  that 
time  the  pope  was  a  subject  of  the  Eastern  emperors,  the 
successors  of  Constantine ;  and  it  will  appear  in  the  sequel 
that  he  the  more  readily  lent  his  high  authority  to  this  end, 
because  he  saw  in  the  success  of  Pepin  the  promise  of  erect- 
ing a  power  in  the  West  which  he,  or  his  successors,  could 
employ  in  sundering  their  own  allegiance  to  the  Eastern 
empire.  His  reasoning  was,  doubtless,  this  :  that  if  Pepin, 
by  his  ecclesiastical  aid,  could  make  treason  against  Chil- 
deric  successful  in  France,  he,  by  the  aid  of  Pepin,  might 
make  his  own  successful  against  the  empire  to  which  Rome 
belonged.  Whatever  the  motive,  however,  the  fact  is  at- 
tested by  the  unanimous  voice  of  history,  that  Pepin  did 
become  king  of  France  only  by  the  aid  of  the  pope's  exer- 
cise of  spiritual  authority,  as  the  head  of  the  Roman  Church, 
which  he  unscrupulously  employed  for  that  purpose,  while 
he  was  himself  the  subject  of,  and  owed  temporal  allegiance 
to  another  monarch.  Seemingly  unconscious  of  the  obli- 
gation which  rested  upon  him  to  keep  the  Church  pure  and 
uncontaminated,  and  not  to  employ  the  sacred  things  of  re- 
ligion for  mere  worldly  and  ambitious  ends,  he  entered  into 
the  schemes  of  Pepin  with  the  greatest  alacrity.  Without 
stopping  to  count  the  cost,  either  to  religion  or  the  Church, 
he  complied  with  Pepin's  request  in  a  manner  which  must 
have  been  exceedingly  gratifying  to  him,  and  which  placed 
him  under  obligations  he  was  subsequently  quite  ready  to 
recognize.  In  violation  of  the  hereditary  and  legal  right  of 
Childeric,  and  in  direct  opposition  to  the  established  laws  of 
France,  he  issued  his  papal  brief  absolving  the  people  from 
their  allegiance,  and  transferring  the^  crown  to  Pepin,  the 


324  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

ambitious  and  revolutionary  usurper.  And,  as  if  he  actual- 
ly wielded  the  authority  of  God,  himself,  he  went  even  one 
step  farther  than  this,  by  prohibiting  the  French  people  from 
ever  thereafter  exercising  any  freedom  of  choice  in  the  elec- 
tion of  their  king,  or  from  ever  depriving  the  Carlovingian 
princes  of  the  crown  —  that  is,  the  descendants  of  Charles 
Martel. 

Gibbon,  speaking  of  this  extraordinary  use  of  spiritual 
power,  says:  "The  Franks  were  absolved  from  their  ancient 
oath;  but  a  dire  anathema  was  thundered  against  them  and 
their  posterity  if  they  should  dare  to  renew  the  same  free- 
dom of  choice,  or  to  elect  a  king,  except  in  the  holy  and 
meritorious  race  of  the  Carlovingian  princes  ;"(*)  that  is, 
having  thus  been  brought  under  the  spiritual  dominion  of 
the  pope  to  such  an  extent  as  to  allow  him  to  dictate  their 
domestic  policy  and  dispose  of  their  crown,  the  curse  of  God 
would  rest  upon  them  if  ever  thereafter  the  French  people 
should  dare  to  repeat  the  act  of  electing  a  king,  except  in 
the  interest  of  the  papacy  and  with  the  consent  of  the  pope! 
A  monarchy  thus  established  could  not  be  otherwise  than 
devoted  to  the  pope.  Michelet,  speaking  of  it,  says :  "  This 
monarchy  of  Pepin's,  founded  by  the  priests,  was  devoted  to 
the  priests. "(^) 

There  is  no  dispute  about  the  main  facts  thus  far.  A 
modern  Roman  Catholic  historian  in  the  United  States  has 
put  them  in  a  succinct  form ;  and,  while  he  endeavors  to  con- 
vey the  idea  that  it  was  altogether  right  and  proper  for  the 
pope  to  absolve  the  French  people  from  their  allegiance  to 
Childeric,  yet  he  narrates  the  circumstances  with  commend- 
able fairness  and  impartiality. (*) 

The  ecclesiastical  historians  are  not  less  distinct  in  their 

Q"Milman's  Gibbon,"  vol.  v.,  p.  29.  "To  be  crowned  king  in  those 
days  was  to  have  the  sanction  of  religion  added  to  the  reality  of  the  earthly 
power.  After  that  ennobling  ceremony  the  office  of  king  became  invested 
with  loftier  attributes  than  merely  the  reverence  of  men.  It  was  considered 
something  divine  and  sacred ;  resistance  to  its  authority  grew  to  be  not  only 
rebellion,  but  sacrilege ;  and  henceforth,  however  nearly  a  great  noble  might 
approach  the  monarch  in  power,  he  was  immeasurably  inferior  to  him  in  dig- 
nity and  rank." — History  of  France,  by  Rev.  James  White,  p.  26. 

C)  "  Hist,  of  France,"  by  Michelet,  vol.  i.,  p.  111. 

O  "  Modern  Hist.,"  by  Peter  Fredet,  D.D.,  p.  183,  and  note  F.,  p.  494. 


POLITICO-RELIGIOUS  ALLIANCE.  325 

Statements.  Dr.  Waddington,  referring  to  the  usurpation 
of  Pepin,  says :  "  This  occurrence  is  generally  related  as  the 
first  instance  of  the  temporal  ambition  of  the  Vatican,  or,  at 
least,  of  its  interference  with  the  rights  of  princes  and  the 
allegiance  of  subjects. "(^)  Cormenin  condemns  the  pope  in 
decided  language,  and  charges  that  he  sent  letters  to  Pepin, 
"  encouraging  him  in  his  ambitious  projects,  and  authorizing 
him,  in  the  name  of  religion,  to  depose  Childeric  III.,  and  to 
take  possession  of  his  crown."('') 

This  politico -religious  alliance  between  Pepin  and  the 
pope  has  most  important  aspects  which  can  not  escape  ob- 
servation. On  the  part  of  the  pope,  it  was  the  assertion  of 
the  divine  right  to  dispose  of  the  crown  of  France  without 
regard  to  the  wishes  of  the  French  people,  and  to  compel 
them  to  obey  him  in  the  subsequent  management  of  their 
own  affairs.  And  it  was  equivalent  to  the  assumption  of 
like  authority  over  all  other  nations  and  peoples.  This  is  a 
claim  before  which  the  temporal  power  in  the  Papal  States 
is  dwarfed  into  insignificance ;  and  yet  the  pope  did  not 
even  possess  this  at  the  time  of  this  extraordinary  assump- 
tion. Manifestly  it  could  not  be  conceded  to  him  without 
bringing  all  the  nations  at  his  feet,  and  without  taking 
away  from  the  people,  wherever  they  possess  it,  the  power 
to  make  their  own  laws,  select  their  own  agents  to  "execute 
them,  and  regulate  their  own  domestic  concerns.  And  it 
should  not  be  overlooked,  in  view  of  its  enormity,  that  it  is 
precisely  this  same  divine  power  to  which  Pius  IX.  now 
lays  claim.  With  him  there  can  be  no  higher  or  better  ev- 
idence of  right  than  the  exercise  of  it  by  one  of  his  infalli- 
ble predecessors.  And  there  will  be  no  impediment  to  its 
universal  recognition,  whenever  mankind  shall  be  brought 
to  the  concession  that  the  Church,  through  her  infallible 
head,  defines  her  own  powers  and  jurisdiction. 

Q)  "Church  Hist.,"  by  Waddington,  p.  148  ;  "  Maclaine's  Mosheim's  Eccl. 
Hist,"  vol.  i.,  pp.  194,  195;  "The  Old  Catholic  Church,"  by  Killen,  pp. 
389,  390. 

O  "Hist,  of  the  Popes,"  by  Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  188.  That  the  Roman 
Catholic  annalists  claimed,  in  behalf  of  the  pope,  that  he  acted  by  virtue  of 
"A{s  apostolic  authority'^  in  disposing  of  the  French  crown,  is  shown  by 
Parke  Godwin,  in  his  "  History  of  France,"  vol.^  i.,  p.  394. 


326  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

The  alliance  began  to  bear  its  legitimate  fruits  without 
much  delay.  The  Lombards  had  seized  upon  and  held  a 
great  part  of  Italy,  including  the  province  of  Ravenna,  the 
capital  of  which,  as  the  former  residence  of  the  great  Os- 
tragothic  King  Theodoric,  and  of  the  Greek  Exarchs,  had 
grown  into  rivalry  with  Rome.  This  territory  belonged  to 
the  Eastern  empire,  whose  emperors,  it  is  alleged  by  the  de- 
fenders of  the  papacy,  were  either  not  disposed  or  too  feeble 
to  defend  it,  and  had  been  held  about  two  years  by  its 
Lombard  conquerors.  But  Astolphus,  the  Lombard  king, 
was  not  satisfied  with  these  possessions,  and  threatened  to 
seize  upon  Rome,  which  still  belonged  to  the  empire.  The 
pope,  being  unwilling  to  let  Rome  be  brought  under  the 
dominion  of  the  Lombards,  fearing  that  its  ecclesiastical 
power  would  be  transferred  to  Ravenna,  and  the  papacy  be 
thereby  made  subordinate  to  the  Exarchate,  inaugurated 
immediate  measures  for  resistance.  Those  who  justify  the 
exercise  of  temporal  power  by  the  popes,  say  that  he  peti- 
tioned the  emperors  to  send  assistance  to  Rome,  to  repel  the 
contemplated  attack  of  Astolphus.  Dr.  Fredet,  being  too 
candid  to  deny  that  Rome  then  "  belonged  to  the  emperors 
of  Constantinople,"  but  admitting  that  fact,  says,  "Pope 
Stephen  sent  to  implore  necessary  succors  from  Constantine 
Copronymus,  m  whose  name  the  government  of  Rome  was 
still  exercised^ {^)  These  succors,  if  called  for,  were  not  fur- 
nished ;  and  the  same  author,  in  assigning  the  reason,  says 
that  the  "emperor  was  too  deeply  engaged  in  warring 
against  the  images  of  the  saints  to  think  of  sending  troops 
against  the  Lombards. "(")  Whatever  the  precise  facts  may 
have  been,  the  question  lay  between  the  Roman  people,  in 
whose  name  the  pope  acted,  and  the  emperor,  to  whom,  as 
subjects,  they  owed  allegiance  by  the  existing  law  of  na- 
tions. The  pope,  as  a  subject,  also  owed  this  allegiance  no 
less  than  the  people.  His  power  was  exclusively  ecclesias- 
tical, and  possessing  none  over  temporal  and  political  mat- 
ters, whatsoever  he  did  in  reference  to  these,  he  did,  neces- 
sarily, as  a  subject.  He  could  not  get  rid  of  the  obligation 
of  his  allegiance  by  any  act  short  of  revolt  against  legiti- 

C)  Fredet,  p.  184.  O  Ibid, 


EXCUSES  FOR  THE  POPE'S  TREASON.  327 

mate  authority.  And  this  relation  in  which  he  and  the  Ro- 
man people  stood  to  the  emperors  must  be  kept  in  mind, 
in  order  to  understand  the  full  bearing  of  the  subsequent 
events  out  of  which  the  temporal  power  arose. 

Dr.  Fredet,  referring  to  the  condition  into  which  the  peo- 
ple were  thrown  by  the  neglect  of  the  emperors,  also  says : 
"  In  this  extremity  the  Romans  embraced  the  last  resource 
which  was  left  them,  that  of  calling  the  valiant  monarch  of 
the  French  to  their  assistance."(^)  And  upon  the  same  sub- 
ject he  says,  at  another  place : 

"  Thus,  finding  implacable  enemies  both  in  the  barbarians 
[Lombards]  and  in  their  own  sovereigns,  the  people,  driven 
almost  to  despair,  began  to  sigh  ardently  after  a  new  and 
better  order  of  things.  The  eyes  of  all  were  turned  toward 
the  pope,  as  their  only  refuge  and  the  common  father  of  all 
in  distress.  In  this  state  of  desolation,  the  sovereign  pon- 
tifi*s,  unable  any  longer  to  resist  the  eagerness  of  the  multi- 
tudes flying  into  their  arms  for  protection  and  refuge,  and 
destitute  of  every  other  means,  applied  to  the  French,  who 
alone  were  both  willing  and  able  to  defend  them  against  the 

Lombards.'X'") 

This  statement  presents,  it  is  believed,  the  papal  view  in 
the  most  satisfactory  light.  And  yet  the  reader  can  not  fail 
to  observe  how  distinctly  it  asserts  the  revolutionary  right 
of  the  Roman  people,  under  the  guidance  of  the  pope,  to 
throw  off  their  allegiance  to  their  lawful  sovereigns,  the 
successors  of  Constantine.  And  the  resort  to  this  remedy 
is  both  excused  and  justified,  in  the  absence  of  any  accusa- 
tion of  misgovernment  or  oppression  against  the  emperors. 
They  are  charged  with  not  having  been  sufficiently  prompt 
and  energetic  in  defending  Rome  against  the  threatened  at- 
tack of  the  Lombards;  not  with  having  been  guilty  of  any 
wrong  or  injustice  toward  either  the  Roman  people  or  the 
pope.  Modern  revolutions  have  been  inaugurated  as  the 
last  and  ultimate  remedy  for  grievances  which  can  be  en- 
dured no  longer  without  an  abandonment  of  all  natural 
rights;  and  yet  it  is  against  these  that  the  fiercest  anathe- 
mas of  the  papacy  have  been  launched.     Here,  however,  the 

C)  Fredet,  p.  184.  C°)  Ibid.,  note  G,  pp.  495,  496. 


328-  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

pope  is  justified  for  having  put  the  temporal  affairs  of  Rome 
in  the  keeping  of  the  French  king,  for  the  twofold  purpose 
of  defending  them  against  the  Lombards,  and  of  acquiring 
the  temporal  power  himself,  at  a  time  when  the  Roman 
people  were  not  suffering  any  oppression  from  the  empire. 
Rome,  for  several  centuries  before  that  time,  had  acquired  no 
distinct  existence  as  a  nation,  and,  as  Dr.  Fredet  agrees,  it 
belonged  to  the  territorial  possessions  of  the  Eastern  emper- 
ors. They  had  never  abandoned  their  claim  to  it,  and  had 
never  expressed  a  willingness  to  do  so.  Hence,  the  right 
of  the  Romans  to  act  independently  of  the  emperors,  in  or- 
der ultimately  to  resist  their  authority,  was  purely  revolu- 
tionary, and  can  not  be  justified,  even  in  the  modern  view, 
unless  it  was  a  necessary  measure  of  relief  against  severe 
and  irremediable  oppression.  How  such  a  right  can  be  de- 
fended at  all,  consistently  with  the  expressed  opinions  of  the 
present  pope  and  his  defenders,  it  is  difficult  to  understand. 
Can  it  be  that  they  regard  revolution  as  justifiable  only 
when  it  inures  to  the  benefit  of  the  papacy  ? 

The  Eastern  emperors,  at  the  time  referred  to,  were  at 
war  with  the  Arabs,  a  fierce  and  formidable  enemy.  (")  The 
fact  of  having  to  carry  on  such  a  war  as  this  may,  in  some 
degree,  account  for  their  alleged  neglect  of  the  Roman  peo- 
ple. But,  besides  this,  it  is  also  true  that  the  controversy 
between  the  Eastern  and  Western  Christians,  in  reference 
to  the  worship  of  images,  had  much  to  do  in  fixing  the 
relations  between  them,  especially  those  between  the  em- 
perors and  the  popes.  It  is  the  most  probable  and  plausi- 
ble view  of  the  matter  to  say  that,  on  account  of  this  pure- 
ly religious  disagreement,  and  the  violence  to  which  it  led 
on  both  sides,  the  pope  was  very  ready  to  avail  himself  of 
the  existing  condition  of  affairs  to  throw  himself  under  the 
royal  protection  of  Pepin,  and  thus  build  up  a  powerful 
monarchy  in  the  West,  under  the  shelter  of  which  he  could 
consummate  his  contemplated  revolt  against  the  emperors. 
In  the  light  of  subsequent  events  this  is  the  most  natural 
conclusion,  and  several  contemporaneous  facts  contribute  to 
its  support.     When  the  pope  invoked  the  aid  of  the  emper- 

(")  Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  191. 


THE  POPE'S  PERFIDY.  329 

or,  the  latter  instructed  him  to  go  to  the  court  of  AstolphuSj 
the  Lombard  king,  and  to  demand  the  restoration  of  Raven- 
na and  the  other  cities  he  had  seized,  in  the  name  of  the  em- 
pire ;  showing  thereby  that  he  had  no  idea  of  abandoning 
his  authority  and  jurisdiction  over  any  part  of  Italy.  This 
imperial  order  was  obeyed  by  Stephen  III.,  who  was  then 
pope,(^'')  by  visiting  the  court  of  the  Lombard  king  and  mak- 
ing the  demand  in  the  name  of  the  emperor,  and  as  his  em- 
bassador. It  was,  however,  refused  by  Astolphus,  who  had 
no  idea  of  willingly  surrendering  the  advantages  he  had  ac- 
quired by  the  possession  of  Ravenna  and  other  cities.  The 
pope  not  only  expected  this,  but  had  prepared  for  it  by  tak- 
ing other  steps  independently  of  the  emperor,  and  without 
his  knowledge.  These  exercise  a  controlling  influence  in 
deciding  upon  his  motives.  He  had  already  addressed  him- 
self to  Pepin,  and  had  also  written  to  the  French  dukes, 
"  beseeching  them  to  come  to  the  rescue  of  St.  Peter,"  and 
promising  them,  says  Cormenin,  "  in  the  name  of  the  apos- 
tle, the  remission  of  all  the  sins  they  had  committed,  of 
mio^ht  commit  in  the  future,  and  ffuaranteeing;  to  them  un- 
alterable  happiness  in  this  world,  and  eternal  life  in  the 
next."(^^)  He  had  also  made  up  his  mind,  before  he  set 
out  for  Pavia,  where  the  Lombard  king  held  his  court,  that 
he  would  go  directly  to  France,  and  hold  a  personal  inter- 
view with  Pepin,  for  the  better  explanation  and  understand- 
ing of  his  alliance  with  Pope  Zachary,  and  of  their  mutual 
relations  in  consequence  of  it.  (")  From  these  facts  it  is 
perfectly  apparent  that  he  had  deliberated  upon  his  revolt 
against  the  empire,  and  plotted  the  means  of  carrying  it  out 
before  he  left  Rome. 

That  he  was  guilty  of  both  duplicity  and  perfidy  is  be- 
yond all  question ;  for,  while  acting  as  the  official  embassa- 
dor of  his  sovereign,  he  was  at  the  same  time  engaged  in 
making  a  hostile  treaty  with  a  foreign  monarch.  He  was 
not  deterred  by  the  consideration  of  any  misfortune  which 
might  befall  the  empire.     After  the  refusal  of  Astolphus,  he 


(")  He  is  sometimes  called  Stephen  II. ,  but  erroneously,  as  Stephen  II. 
was  pope  only  a  few  days,  and  was  never  consecrated. 

CO  Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  191.  .  ('*)  Ibid. 


330  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

hastened  on  to  France,  and  negotiated  another  alliance  with 
Pepin,  without  reporting  his  failure  to  the  emperor.  He 
had  set  out  upon  his  revolt  with  resolute  steps,  and,  con- 
scious of  the  strength  of  the  military  power  he  was  invok- 
ing, cast  his  eyes  no  longer  toward  Constantinople,  except 
with  a  view  to  plan  more  successfully  the  measures  by 
which  he  hoped  to  sunder  his  allegiance  to  the  empire.  By 
the  laws  of  nations,  as  they  now  exist,  this  would  be  trea- 
son ;  but,  however  it  may  have  been  then  considered,  the 
pope  doubtless  sought  for  his  justification  in  the  fact  that 
Constantine  Copronymus  was  an  iconoclastic  emperor,  and 
Pepin  was  a  faithful  son  of  the  Church,  and  the  head  of  a 
monarchy  which,  "  founded  by  the  priests,  was  true  to  the 
priests."  It  was  the  most  natural  thing  in  the  world  for 
him  to  conclude  that,  as  the  papacy  had  been  the  means  of 
enabling  Pepin  to  make  his  own  revolt  against  Childeric  III. 
successful,  Pepin  would  reciprocate  the  favor  by  helping  him 
to  break  off  his  allegiance  to  the  Eastern  emperors.  Such 
combinations  among  ambitious  and  aspiring  men  have  been 
frequent  in  the  w^orld,  yet  history  gives  no  account  of  any 
other  that  has  been  followed  by  so  long  a  train  of  conse- 
quences. 

Pepin,  no  doubt  anticipating  advantages  to  himself,  readi- 
ly consented  to  comply  with  the  request  of  the  pope.  He 
marched  his  army  against  the  Lombard  king,  and  compel- 
led him  to  surrender  up  all  the  Italian  territory  occupied  by 
him.  And  here  at  this  point  we  see  the  advantages  which 
the  papacy  achieved  by  the  alliance ;  for  Pepin,  entirely  ig- 
noring the  claim  of  the  empire,  caused  the  territory  to  be 
surrendered  to  the  pope^  in  the  name  of  "  the  see  of  Rome  !" 
And  the  pope  accepted  the  royal  present  with  as  little  com- 
punctions of  conscience  as  if  he  were  a  subject  of  the  King 
of  France,  instead  of  the  emperor  of  the  East.  The  territory 
thus  surrendered  included  Ravenna,  Bologna,  Ferrara,  and 
the  Pentapolis,  all  of  which,  it  is  said  by  the  papal  writers, 
was  conveyed  by  "  solemn  grant,"  in  order  that  Rome,  with 
these  territories  as  an  appendage  to  it,  should  be  erected 
into  an  ecclesiastical  State,  with  the  temporal  power  to  gov- 
ern it  in  the  hands  of  the  pope.  This,  it  should  be  observed, 
was  in  the  year  754 — seven  and  a  half  centuries  after  the 


THE  GRANT  OF  PEPIN  TO  THE  POPE.      331 

commencement  of  the  Christian  era  —  and  constitutes  the 
only  basis  of  the  papal  claim  to  temporal  power  which 
has  the  slightest  plausibility  about  it,  or  is  in  any  sense  de- 
fensible. Without  stopping  now  to  inquire  why,  if  this 
power  were  absolutely  necessary  to  Christianity  and  the 
Church,  it  was  so  long  permitted  by  Providence  to  be  de- 
ferred, there  are  several  questions  arising  out  of  the  forego- 
ing circumstances  too  important  to  be  passed  by. 

Was  there  any  such  "  grant "  as  is  alleged  to  have  been 
made  by  Pepin,  conferring  title  to  the  surrendered  territory 
upon  the  pope  ?  One  would  suppose,  if  there  had  been,  that 
it  would  have  been  produced  before  now,  in  order  to  settle 
the  many  controversies  that  have  taken  place  on  the  sub- 
ject. Its  existence  has  been  frequently  denied,  and  its  ex- 
hibition has  been  invited  and  challenged  in  a  variety  of 
ways.  The  limits  of  the  grant  have  been  often  controverted, 
some  popes  endeavoring  to  enlarge  and  others  to  contract 
them.  An  inspection  of  it  at  any  time  would  have  settled 
all  these  questions.  But,  although  it  has  been  said  that  it 
is  preserved  in  the  Vatican  at  Rome,  it  has  never  yet  been 
produced!  Fontanini,  in  his  defense  of  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  pope,  "  intimates  that  this  grant  is  yet  extant,  and  even 
makes  use  of  some  phrases  that  are  said  to  be  contained  in 
it."  But,  as  is  well  remarked  by  Dr.  Maclaine,  this  "  will 
scarcely  be  believed.  Were  it,  indeed,  true  that  such  a  deed 
remains,  its  being  published  to  the  world  would  be  undoubt- 
edly unfavorable  to  the  pretensions  of  Rome."  He  refers 
also  to  the  fact  that,  in  a  dispute  between  the  Emperor  Jo- 
seph I.  and  the  pope  concerning  Commachio,  the  partisans 
of  the  latter  constantly  refused  to  exhibit  the  deed  ;  and 
also  to  the  further  fact  that  Bianchini  had  given  a  specimen 
of  it  "  from  a  Farnesian  manuscript,  which  seems  to  carry  the 
marks  of  a  remote  antiquity ;"  and  then  says :  "  Be  this  as  it 
may,  a  multitude  of  witnesses  unite  in  assuring  us  that  the  re- 
morse of  a  wounded  conscience  was  the  source  of  Pepin's  liber- 
ality, and  that  his  grant  to  the  Roman  pontiff  was  the  super- 
stitious remedy  by  which  he  hoped  to  expiate  his  enormities, 
and  particularly  his  horrid  perfidy  to  his  master^  Childeric.^'*  {^^) 

Q^)  "  Maclaine's  Mosheim,"  vol.  i.,  p.  195,  note. 


332  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

It  is  a  rule  of  law  that,  when  a  party  pretends  to  have  in 
his  possession  evidence  that  would  explain  any  matter  of 
controversy  in  which  he  is  involved,  the  fact  of  his  withhold- 
ing it  should  be  construed  unfavorably  to  his  pretensions. 
Therefore,  as  more  than  eleven  hundred  years  have  elapsed 
since  the  conquest  of  Pepin  from  the  Lombards,  and  during 
all  this  time  no  '"'' granV  from  him  to  the  pope  has  ever 
been  produced,  it  is  not  unreasonable  to  conclude  that  none 
such  was  ever  made.  And  yet  it  is  true,  doubtless,  that 
Pepin  did  put  the  pope  in  possession  of  the  conquered  ter- 
ritory, and  confer  upon  him,  as  far  as  he  could,  the  authori- 
ty to  govern  it,  as  the  head  of  the  Roman  Church,  but  with- 
out any  attempt  to  convey  it  by  deed.  If  history  were  en- 
tirely silent  upon  the  subject,  this  much  might  be  inferred 
from  the  nature  of  their  relations  to  each  other,  they  being 
such  as  to  create  upon  the  part  of  each  the  reciprocal  obli- 
gation to  do  any  thing  the  other  should  require.  The  pope 
made  Pepin  a  king,  and  why  should  not  Pepin  aid  the  pope 
to  break  his  allegiance  to  the  Eastern  emperors  and  become 
a  king  also  ?  Whatever  would  justify  the  act  of  revolt  in 
the  one  case  would  equally  justify  it  in  the  other.  If  the 
pope  had  ecclesiastical  authority  sufficient  to  legalize  the 
treason  of  Pepin  against  Childeric,  the  French  legions  had 
physical  power  enough  to  legalize  the  pope's  treason  against 
his  lawful  sovereign.  Therefore,  in  this  spirit  of  mutuality, 
and  in  entire  disregard  of  all  legal  rights,  "  the  splendid  do- 
nation was  granted,  in  supreme  and  absolute  dominion,  and 
the  world  beheld, /br  the  first  thne^  a  Christian  bishop  in- 
vested with  the  prerogatives  of  a  temporal  prince."(*^) 

It  is  insisted  by  many  who  defend  the  temporal  preroga- 
tives of  the  popes,  that  this  donation  of  Pepin  only  restored 
to  them  jurisdiction  which  they  had  previously  possessed. 
Even  Archbishop  Kenrick,  in  support  of  this  assertion,  has 
been  tempted,  when  speaking  of  the  act  of  Pepin,  incautious- 
ly to  say : 

"  This  can  scarcely  be  considered  a  mere  donation,  since 
a  great  portion,  if  not  all,  of  the  territory  had  already  be- 

(")  "  Milman's  Gibbon,"  vol.  v.,  p.  32 ;  "  The  Temporal  Power  of  the  Pa- 
pacy," by  Legge,  p.  23. 


THE  POPE'S  JURISDICTION  USURPED.  333 

longed  to  the  pope;  whence  Stephen  IV.,  in  the  year  769, 
urged  the  French  princes,  Charles  and  Carloman,  as  a  mat- 
ter of  duty  which  they  owed  to  St.  Peter,  to  see  that  Ms 
property^  usurped  by  the  Lombards,  should  be  fully  re- 
stored:\'') 

The  mind  of  the  learned  archbishop  must  have  been  some- 
what confused  when  he  wrote  this.  He  first  states  as  a  fact 
the  ownership  of  territory  by  the  popes  before  the  donation 
of  Pepin,  in  the  year  754,  during  the  pontificate  of  Stephen 
III.,  and,  to  establish  this,  cites  the  action  and  claim  of  Pope 
Stephen  IV.,  in  the  year  769 — fifteen  years  afterward  !  This 
is  neither  logical  nor  satisfactory.  But  the  important  ques- 
tion at  last  is,  whether  or  no  the  statement  of  fact  is  to  be 
relied  on.  It  is  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  reconcile  it 
with  the  historical  narrative,  if,  indeed,  it  is  not  positively 
contradicted.  Dr.  Fredet,  manifestly,  does  not  believe  it ; 
on  the  other  hand,  he  directly  contradicts  it.  He  insists 
that  the  donation  of  Pepin  was  "  a  solemn  grant  to  the  see 
of  Rome  of  that  part  of  Italy  which  is,  on  this  account,  call- 
ed the  Ecclesiastical  State,  and  has  ever  since  composed  the 
temporal  dominion  of  the  popes."  But  he  immediately  says, 
"JBefore  that  time  they  [the  popes]  had  been  subject,  in  civil 
matters,  to  the  Hornan  or  Greek  emperors.^\^^)  And  such  is, 
undoubtedly,  the  fact,  as  history  abundantly  attests.  This 
is  conclusive  upon  the  subject :  that  the  authority  and  juris- 
diction of  the  Eastern  emperors  over  Rome  never  absolute- 
ly ceased  until  Charlemagne  was  made  emperor  of  the  West, 
in  the  year  800 — nearly  half  a  century  after  the  alleged  do- 
nation of  Pepin.  It  took  the  popes  all  this  time  to  sunder 
entirely  the  ties  of  their  allegiance  to  the  East,  and  it  was 
only  then  accomplished  by  the  strength  of  the  French  ar- 
mies. The  prowess  of  Charlemagne  made  their  usurped  ju- 
risdiction over  civil  matters  secure ;  and  until  then,  both  by 
the  laws  of  the  empire  and  the  law  of  nations,  the  popes 
were  the  subjects  of  the  emperors,  and  owed  to  them  the 
duty  of  allegiance  and  fidelity. 

History  does  not  inform  us  that  there  was  any  political 
quarrel,  or  cause  of  quarrel,  between  the  government  at 

(")  Kenrick's  *'  Primacy,"  p.  261.  C')  Fredet,  p.  185. 


334  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

Constantinople  and  the  people  of  Italy  or  Rome.  So  far  as 
their  civil  affairs  were  concerned,  every  thing  was  satisfac- 
tory and  harmonious.  The  whole  existing  disagreement 
arose  out  of  the  question  of  the  worship  of  images,  and  was 
therefore  entirely  religious. ('*')  Upon  this  subject  the  dif- 
ference was  radical  and  irreconcilable ;  and  there  can  be  no 
reasonable  doubt  that  this  was  the  primary  and  inciting 
cause  of  the  pope's  action.  He  could  readily  foresee  his 
own  weakness  as  the  subject  of  an  iconoclastic  emperor, 
and  the  strength  he  would  acquire  by  a  close  alliance  with 
the  French  kings,  and  the  establishment  of  a  strong  mon- 
archy in  the  West,  devoted  to  the  Church  and,  more  espe- 
cially, to  the  papacy.  Hence,  the  only  legitimate  inference 
from  his  whole  conduct  is,  that  he  employed  the  influence 
of  religion  and  of  the  Church  to  excite  the  minds  of  a  su- 
perstitious and  ignorant  population  against  their  civil  gov- 
ernment, in  order  to  obtain  from  a  foreign  king,  to  whom  he 
owed  no  allegiance,  the  concession  of  his  temporal  power, 
that  he  might  thereby  be  enabled  to  break  off  his  own  law- 
ful allegiance  to  the  empire.  Every  step  taken  by  the  dif- 
ferent popes  who  participated  in  these  movements  justifies 
this  belief,  and  the  result  confirms  it.  Rome  needed  only 
that  her  popes  should  possess  temporal  power  to  make  her 
superior  to  Constantinople ;  and  for  this  prize  the  contest 
was  carried  on  with  unabated  zeal  until  the  final  victory 
was  won. 

How  could  Pope  Stephen  HI,  while  occupying  the  rela- 
tion of  subject  to  the  empire,  acquire  title  to  territory  or 
temporal  power,  by  the  donation  of  Pepin,  a  foreign  prince  ? 

(")  The  iconoclastic  controversy  began  under  the  pontificate  of  Gregory 
II.  (715-'31),  and  while  Leo  the  Isaurian  was  emperor.  It  was  carried  on 
with  great  violence.  There  is  great  discrepancy  among  the  Eastern  and 
Western  historians  in  regard  to  its  earliest  stages.  The  former  charge  Greg- 
ory II.  with  having  immediately  proceeded  to  the  extremity  of  organizing  a 
revolt  against  the  empire,  and  of  releasing  the  Italian  people  from  their  alle- 
giance. This  is  denied  by  the  latter,  Du  Pin  does  not  credit  it. — Eccl. 
Hist.^  vol.  vi.,  p.  132.  Dean  Milman  omits  any  reference  to  the  charge. — 
Latin  Christianity,  vol.  ii.,  p,  293-327.  But  Cormenin  treats  it  as  true,  and 
records  many  alleged  outrages  committed  by  the  pope,  such  as  seizing  the 
envoys,  who  were  the  bearers  of  conciliatory  letters  from  the  emperor,  and 
putting  them  to  death.— Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  pp.  178,  179. 


PEPIN'S  GRANT  TO  THE  POPE  INVALID.  335 

Was  it  within  the  power  of  Pepin  to  release  him  from  his 
lawful  allegiance?  Did  not  all  the  rights  transferred  to 
him  by  Pepin  inure  to  the  benefit  of  the  empire?  Can  a 
rebel,  by  treaty  or  alliance  with  a  foreign  power,  acquire 
any  legitimate  rights  against  his  government  or  his  lawful 
sovereign  ? 

It  is  necessary  that  these  questions  shall  be  decided  in  or- 
der to  understand  the  nature  of  the  donation  from  Pepin  to 
the  pope — whether  or  no  any  temporal  power  was  rightful- 
ly acquired  by  means  of  it,  even  if  it  be  conceded  to  have 
been  to  the  full  extent  claimed  by  the  papal  writers. 

It  is  believed  that  the  law  of  nations  has  undergone  no 
<ihange  in  reference  to  these  matters,  from  the  earliest  ages 
of  Christian  civilization.  By  its  provisions  a  rebel  can  ac- 
quire no  rights  in  his  own  behalf  as  against  his  own  gov- 
ernment ;  for  whatever  he  may  do,  whether  by  himself  or 
by  foreign  aid,  is  considered  only  as  resistance  to  lawful  au- 
thority. A  successful  revolt  is  another  and  difi*erent  mat- 
ter. In  that  case,  rights  are  obtained  and  held  only  by  rev- 
olutionary force,  and  when  they  become  accomplished  facts, 
are,  in  the  judgment  of  modern  nations  especially,  entitled 
to  the  highest  consideration.  The  American  idea  is,  that 
the  best  nations  in  the  world  have  been  the  result  of  revolu- 
tion ;  which  is  justified  or  not,  according  to  the  degree  of 
wrong  and  oppression  it  is  designed  to  resist.  But  those 
who  defend  the  temporal  power  of  the  popes  derive  no  as- 
sistance from  this  doctrine ;  for  one  of  the  most  prominent 
features  in  the  papal  teaching  is  the  doctrine  which  de- 
nounces revolution  and  resistance  to  legitimate  civil  author- 
ity. If  the  conduct  of  Pope  Stephen  be  measured  and 
judged  by  these  teachings,  he  undoubtedly  brought  himself, 
not  only  in  open  hostility  to  the  law  of  the  empire,  but  to 
the  law  of  nations  and  of  God.  Nor  will  the  papacy  be  aid- 
ed by  what  is  called  the  doctrine  of  accomplished  facts,  for 
it  has  invariably  taught  that  no  rights  are  conferred  by 
them  when  they  grow  out  of  resistance  to  lawful  author- 
ity, no  matter  how  long  they  may  be  enjoyed;  as  the  pope 
shows  in  his  Encyclical  of  1864,  and  as  will  abundantly  ap- 
pear hereafter. 

The  conclusion  is  unavoidable,  that  the  popes  acquired  no 


336  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

rightful  authority  by  the  donation  of  Pepin.  The  territo- 
ries donated  were  held  by  the  Lombard  king  only  by  con- 
quest, and  had  only  been  so  held  since  the  year  752 — but 
two  years.  (*")  The  superior  title  of  the  empire  had  not  been 
abandoned,  but  still  existed.  If  Pepin  had  taken  them  from 
the  emperor,  then  his  title  might  have  been  defended  ;  and 
in  that  event  he  could  have  disposed  of  them  as  he  pleased. 
But  he  took  them  from  the  Lombards,  not  from  the  empire, 
which  left  the  title  of  the  empire  a  subsisting  and  valid 
claim,  which  could  only  be  extinguished  by  force  or  treaty. 
Neither  of  these  modes  having  been  resorted  to,  they  could 
be  taken  by  the  pope  only  as  a  subject,  not  as  an  independ- 
ent prince ;  having  no  right,  by  the  law  of  nations,  to  ac- 
quire such  title  as  Pepin  attempted  to  confer  upon  him.  He 
could  only  hold  them  in  trust  for  his  sovereign.  Therefore, 
as  he  owed  lawful  allegiance  to  the  empire,  the  title  confer- 
red upon  him  by  Pepin  inured  to  the  empire.  If  he  claim- 
ed, or  attempted  to  exercise,  power  independently  of  the 
empire  by  virtue  of  it,  he  was,  by  the  law  of  nations,  guilty 
of  usurpation.  And  hence  it  follows  that  the  temporal 
power  of  the  popes  derived  from  the  donation  of  Pepin  was 
not  legitimately  obtained,  but  was  usurped  by  a  flagrant 
violation  of  the  law  of  the  empire,  and  the  law  of  nations. 
The  controversy  about  the  worship  of  images  w^as  used  as  a 
pretext  for  its  acquisition,  but  the  real  motive  is  exposed  by 
the  whole  transaction.  It  was  to  build  up  a  civil  power  in 
the  West,  with  the  pope  as  a  temporal  prince,  which  should 
make  the  West  more  powerful  than  the  East,  and  restore  to 
Rome  her  old  pagan  distinction  of  "Mistress  of  the  World." 
And  such  is  the  "truth  of  history,"  when  it  is  extracted 
from  the  mass  of  contradictions. 

Dr.  Fredet  was  too  sagacious  not  to  have  seen  the  force 
of  the  suggestions  here  made,  and  he  has  endeavored  to 
counteract  their  influence.  He  is  compelled  to  admit  that, 
at  the  time  of  the  defeat  of  the  Lombards  by  Pepin,  the  em- 
peror, Constantine  Copronymus,  continued  to  maintain  his 
claim  to  the  territory  embraced  in  the  donation  of  Pepin. 

C)  "Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire,"  by  Sismondi,  p.  312;  "History  of  the 
Church,"  by  Fry,  p.  18G,  London. 


THE  POPE  VIOLATES  INTERN ATI0:NAL  LAW.         337 

He  says :  "At  this  juncture  two  embassadors  arrived  from 
Constanti7iople^  to  claim  for  the  emperor  the  restitution  of 
the  cities  and  provinces  which  had  been  usurped  by  the  Lom- 
bards^i^^)  But  then,  in  order  to  avoid  the  force  of  the  ar- 
gument that,  as  these  territories  were  held  by  the  Lombards 
by  usurpation,  their  recapture  inured  to  the  nationality  to 
which  they  legitimately  belonged,  he  says  also,  at  another 
place : 

"It  is  a  principle  laid  down  by  civilians,  and  founded  on 
the  law  of  nations,  that  he  who  conquers  a  country  in  a  just 
war  not  undertaken  for  the  former  possessors,  nor  in  union 
with  them,  is  not  bound  to  restore  to  them  what  they  would 
not,  or  could  not,  protect  and  secure."(") 

But  if  it  be  conceded  that  this  is  the  statement  of  a  just 
principle,  it  is  broad  enough  to  disprove  the  claim  of  tempo- 
ral power  based  upon  Pepin's  donation.  The  reconquest  of 
the  territory  held  by  the  Lombards  was,  in  the  eye  of  the 
law  of  nations,  "undertaken  for  the  former  possessors." 
The  emperor,  it  is  true,  did  not  solicit  aid  from  Pepin ;  but 
the  pope,  who  was  his  subject,  did.  Pepin  was  bound  to 
know,  and  did  know,  that  the  pope  was  in  revolt  against 
his  sovereign.  Consequently,  there  were  but  two  aspects  in 
which  he  could  have  viewed  his  interference  —  either  that 
he  was  acting  in  behalf  of  the  emperor,  at  the  solicitation 
of  his  subject,  or  was  acting  in  behalf  of  a  rebellious  sub- 
ject against  his  lawful  sovereign.  If  the  former,  then,  by 
the  law  of  nations,  his  donation  inured  to  the  empire ;  if 
the  latter,  he  violated  that  law  by  becoming  a  party  to  an 
armed  rebellion.  But,  in  point  of  fact,  Pepin  did  not  render 
assistance  to  the  pope,  as  against  the  emperor,  but  moved  his 
army  against  the  Lombards,  and  left  the  pope,  after  his  do- 
nation, to  settle  the  question  of  his  treason  with  the  em- 
peror. Therefore,  his  donation  to  the  pope  was  made  to 
him  as  a  subject,  not  as  a  prince;  and,  consequently,  as  a 
subject  can  take  no  title  to  territory  which  had  once  be- 
longed to  his  sovereign  after  its  recapture,  the  donation  of 
Pepin  inured  to  the  empire,  and  not  to  the  pope.  If,  there- 
after, the  pope  was  enabled  to  maintain  his  title  to  it,  he 

C)  Fredet,  p.  185.  (")  Ihid.,  note  (^),  p.  496. 

22 


338  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

could  only  have  done  it  by  successful  revolution,  which 
would  bring  it  within  the  doctrine  of  accomplished  facts, 
now  repudiated  by  the  papacy.  In  any  view  of  it,  we  can 
not  escape  the  fact  that  whatever  temporal  power  the  popes 
acquired  by  these  proceedings  was  obtained  by  usurpation. 

Why  did  the  French  king  make  a  donation  of  territory, 
with  the  authority  of  temporal  government,  to  the  pope  ? 
This  was  about  the  middle  of  the  eighth  century,  and  for 
more  than  seven  hundred  years  the  Church  had  existed 
without  a  temporal  ruler,  without  a  king,  and  without  a 
crown  to  place  upon  the  brow  of  a  king.  There  had  been, 
up  to  that  time,  six  ecumenical  councils  of  the  Church, (") 
and  by  none  of  them  had  it  been  declared,  as  an  essential 
part  of  Christian  faith,  that  the  pope  was  infallible,  or  that 
his  temporal  power  was  necessary  to  the  successful  govern- 
ment of  the  Church,  or  to  the  successful  propagation  of  the 
truths  of  the  Gospel.  Why,  therefore,  this  gift  of  a  tempo- 
ral crown  ?  Manifestly,  it  was  the  reward  which  Pepin  paid 
to  the  pope  for  enabling  him  to  maintain  his  treasonable  re- 
sistance to  the  King  of  France,  by  means  of  which  he  hoped 
to  destroy  a  rival  political  power  in  the  East,  and  transfer 
the  sceptre  of  universal  dominion  to  the  West.  It  was 
the  legitimate  fruit  of  the  alliance  between  the  king  and 
the  pope,  by  which  the  former  gave  political  power  in  ex- 
change for  the  ecclesiastical  protection  of  the  latter.  The 
king  made  himself  a  party  to  the  treason  of  the  pope,  and 
the  pope  made  himself  a  party  to  the  treason  of  the  king. 
They  were  joint  conspirators  against  lawful  authority ;  one 
against  his  lawful  king,  the  other  against  his  lawful  emper- 
or—  both  against  their  national  allegiance.  Each  had  a 
worldly  object  alone  —  the  acquisition  of  princely  power; 
and  therefore  they  both  stand  condemned  by  every  just  prin- 
ciple of  international  law,  as  they  would  do  were  their  con- 
duct now  to  be  adjudged  by  the  unbiased  judgment  of  all 
the  leading  nations. 

During  the  late  rebellion  in  this  country  ten  of  our  States 

C^)  The  first  Council  of  Nice,  a.d.  325 ;  the  first  Council  of  Constantino- 
ple, A.D.  381 ;  the  Council  of  Ephesus,  a.d.  431 ;  the  Council  of  Chalcedon, 
A.D.  451 ;  the  second  Council  of  Constantinople,  a.d.  553 ;  and  the  third 
Council  of  Constantinople,  a.d.  G82. 


PEPIN  DID  NOT  CONQUER  ROME.  339 

held  possession  of  all  their  territory,  by  military  force,  for 
several  years  —  more  than  twice  as  long  as  the  Lombards 
held  Ravenna.  They  excluded  the  authority  of  the  Na- 
tional Government,  defied  its  power,  and  erected  a  govern- 
ment of  their  own.  Suppose  Napoleon  III,  the  "favorite 
son  of  the  Church,"  had  marched  his  army  from  Mexico 
into  these  States,  taken  possession  of  them,  and  turned 
them  over  to  the  temporal  government  of  Pope  Pius  IX., 
whose  throne  he  was  then  holding  up,  then  the  pope  would 
have  had  precisely  the  same  temporal  power  over  all  these 
ten  States  as  Pope  Stephen  III.  acquired  by  the  gift  of  the 
King  of  France  !  The  statement  of  such  a  proposition  suffi- 
ciently refutes  it ;  and  yet  there  are  those  who  habitually 
exhaust  argument  and  eloquence  in  supporting  the  validity 
of  a  title  thus  acquired.  Toleration  does  not  require  that 
these  things  shall  be  passed  over  in  silence,  nor  is  its  spirit 
violated  by  their  arraignment  at  the  bar  of  public  opinion. 

But  there  is  a  view  of  the  question  of  temporal  power, 
designedly  passed  over  until  now,  which  is  of  sufficient  im- 
portance to  be  considered.  Suppose  it  be  conceded  that 
the  pope  did  acquire  temporal  power  by  the  donation  of 
Pepin,  what,  then,  was  its  extent  ?  We  have  already  seen, 
what  all  readers  of  history  know  to  be  true,  that  this  dona- 
tion only  included  the  Italian  territory  held  by  the  Lom- 
bards, and  taken  by  Pepin  from  Astolphus,  the  Lombard 
king.  This  was  Ravenna,  Bologna,  Ferrara,  and  the  Pen- 
tapolis  —  hut  not  Rome,  The  Lombards  did  not  hold  pos- 
session of  Rome.  Pepin  did  not  have  any  authority  over 
Rome,  for  he  made  no  conquest  of  it ;  nor  did  he  pretend 
to  donate  it,  or  any  temporal  authority  over  it,  to  the  pope. 
If  he  had  the  authority,  and  did  confer  temporal  power 
over  the  territory  he  took  from  Astolphus,  then  he  made 
the  pope  prince  over  that  territory  alone,  a7id  not  over 
Rome.  In  Rome  he  remained  a  subject  to  the  emperor, 
and  could  derive  no  right  there  from  the  donation  of  Pep- 
in. Whatever  temporal  power,  therefore,  he  acquired  in 
Rome  must  rest  upon  some  other  foundation  than  the  do- 
nation of  Pepin.  As  the  papists  pretend  to  assign  no  oth- 
er, it  is  necessarily  the  result  of  usurpation. 

It  has  been  remarked  that  the  motives  of  both  Pepin  and 


340  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

the  pope  were  worldly  —  that  they  had  reference  alone  to 
temporal  dominion.  This  is  a  legitimate  inference  from  all 
the  facts.  The  faith  or  creed  of  the  Church,  as  it  had  come 
down  from  the  Council  of  Nice,  was  in  no  way  involved  in 
any  of  the  pending  matters  of  controversy,  except  as  it  was 
connected  with  the  disagreement  about  the  worship  of  im- 
ages. There  were  no  prevailing  heresies  calculated  to  dis- 
turb the  harmony  of  the  Church. (")  The  heresy  of  Mace- 
donius,  which  denied  the  Godhead  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  had 
been  disposed  of  by  the  first  Council  of  Constantinople,  in 
381  ;  that  of  Nestorius,  which  affirmed  that  there  were  two 
distinct  persons  in  Jesus  Christ,  by  the  Council  of  Ephesus, 
in  431 ;  that  of  Eutyches,  which  denied  the  two  distinct  nat- 
ures, divine  and  human,  in  Jesus  Christ,  by  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon,  in  451  ;  and  the  Monothelite  heresy,  which  as- 
serted Jesus  Christ  to  have  no  human  will  separate  from 
the  divine  will,  by  the  third  Council  of  Constantinople,  in 
682.  Harmony,  therefore,  pervaded  the  Church  in  all  its  re- 
ligious departments.  Its  faith  was  unagitated,  its  creed  un- 
assailed.  But  the  pope,  looking  out  from  the  midst  of  this 
internal  peace  and  concord  upon  the  troubled  political  ele- 
ments in  France,  had  his  own  ambition  excited,  and  did  not 
stop  long  to  consider  of  the  means  of  gratifying  it.  The 
step  taken  by  him  was  as  fatal  to  true  piety,  as  it  has  in 
the  end,  after  centuries  of  agitation,  proved  to  be  to  the 
papal  power  he  so  ambitiously  acquired.  By  it,  he  pulled 
down  the  Church  from  her  high  mission  of  saving  souls, 
draggled  her  sacred  robes  in  the  muddy  pool  of  earthly 
politics,  and  put  her  upon  a  career  of  corruption  which  has 

(^^)  There  is  nothing  to  be  found  in  the  proceedings  of  the  first  six  ecu- 
menical councils  favoring  the  worship  of  images.  The  Emperor  Leo,  there- 
fore, when  he  attempted  to  put  a  stop  to  it,  did  not  violate  any  expressed  ar- 
ticle of  faith.  A  council  of  three  hundred  and  thirty-eight  bishops  was  held 
in  Constantinople,  in  the  year  754,  which  condemned  it.  But  this  council 
was  repudiated  by  the  Roman  Christians. — Du  Pin,  vol.  vi.,  p.  133.  The 
second  Council  of  Nice  was  held  under  the  pontificate  of  Adrian  I.,  in  the 
year  757,  and  is  called  ecumenical,  although  the  number  of  bishops  who  at- 
tended it  were  less  than  those  who  assembled  at  Constantinople.  It  con- 
demned the  council  at  Constantinople,  anathematized  those  who  repudiated 
the  worship  of  images,  and  authorized  that  kind  of  worship,  by  introducing 
it  for  the  first  time  into  the  confession  of  faith. — Du  Pin,  vol.  vi.,  p.  139. 


THE  DIVINE  EIGHT  TO  GOVERN.      '  341 

caused  her  own  children  to  afflict  her  with  mortal  stabs. 
He  declared  to  Pepin  that  it  was  the  loiU  of  God  that  he 
should  take  the  crown  from  the  head  of  Childeric,  and  put 
it  upon  his  own  head !  Pepin  needed  no  other  persuasion 
than  this  to  make  him  a  devotee  of  a  religion  so  favorable 
to  his  ambition.  It  was  the  very  faith  which  of  all  others 
suited  him  the  best.  He  was  easily  persuaded  to  aid  a 
pope  who  taught  a  doctrine  so  palatable  to  him,  and  to 
make  it  the  religion  of  France,  because  it  confined  all  sub- 
sequent kings  to  his  own  line  I  He  staked  all  his  fortunes 
upon  the  hazard.  And  he  won  the  prize ;  while  the  ven- 
erable Church,  which  was  thus  turned  away  from  her  peace- 
ful paths,  and  made  to  enter  upon  an  ignoble  mission,  re- 
ceived a  cruel  and  paralyzing  blow.  Centuries  have  pass- 
ed since  then,  during  which  she  has  experienced  the  most  va- 
ried fortunes,  but  she  is  yet  reeling  under  that  blow. 

We  have  but  to  look  at  the  manner  in  which  the  popes 
employed  their  spiritual  authority  in  order  to  promote  tem- 
poral and  secular  ends,  to  see  how  the  Church  was  made  to 
violate  the  injunctions  of  its  founder,  the  example  of  the 
apostles,  and  the  peaceful  teachings  of  the  early  Christians. 
The  retrospect  reflects  no  credit  upon  those  who  became  the 
active  agents  in  these  measures,  but  is  made  necessary  by 
the  enormous  pretensions  now  set  up  in  behalf  of  the  pa- 
pacy. And  it  will  serve  to  show,  also,  how  necessary  it  is 
for  the  best  interests  of  mankind  that  the  nations  shall  not 
again  suffer  the  Church  and  the  State  to  be  united. 

As  perfidy  seemed  to  be  a  common  vice  in  those  days 
among  both  popes  and  kings,  Pepin  had  scarcely  retired 
with  his  army  from  Italy,  before  Astolphus,  the  Lombard 
king,  made  preparations  to  break  his  treaty  by  threatening 
to  retake  the  provinces  he  had  surrendered  and  lay  siege  to 
Rome.  Pope  Stephen  III.  again  had  recourse  to  Pepin,  ur- 
ging him  in  the  most  imploring  terms  to  return  to  Italy  and 
defend  his  *'  donation  "  to  the  Holy  See.  With  him  the  great 
question  was  the  possession  of  the  exarchate  of  Ravenna, 
supposing  that,  unless  that  were  destroyed,  it  would  become, 
in  the  hands  of  the  Lombards,  who  were  Arian  Christians 
but  defended  the  worship  of  images,  too  formidable  as  the 
ecclesiastical  rival  of  Rome.     It  is  quite  certain  that  this 


342  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWEE. 

was  the  chief  ground  of  quarrel  between  the  pope  and  As- 
tolphus ;  and  that, "  if  the  pope  had  allowed  the  Lombards 
to  occupy  the  exarchate,  they  would  have  been  loyal  allies 
of  the  pope."(")  The  pope,  therefore,  could  not  keep  his 
anxiety  within  moderate  bounds,  and  addressed  several  let- 
ters to  Pepin.  In  one  of  them,  according  to  Cormenin,  he 
says :  "  I  conjure  you  by  the  Lord  our  God,  and  his  glorious 
mother — by  the  celestial  virtues  and  the  holy  apostle  who 
has  consecrated  you  king— to  render  to  our  see  the  dona- 
tion which  you  have  offered  it ;"('')  thus  again  invoking  the 
aid  of  religion  in  securing  temporal  power  to  himself.  But 
Pepin  was  not  so  ready  as  before  to  embark  in  an  enterprise 
which  offered  no  further  prospect  of  gain  to  himself;  and,  in- 
dicating some  indifference  to  these  appeals  to  his  religious 
sentiments,  the  pope  was  driven  to  a  still  more  desperate 
expedient — that  of  sending  him  several  letters  purporting 
to  have  been  written  by  the  Virgin  Mary,  angels,  martyrs, 
and  saints,  and  one  by  St.  Peter  himself,  all  of  which,  it  was 
alleged,  had  heen  sent  down  from  heaven  for  the  purpose ! 
The  translation  of  that  from  Peter  is  thus  given  by  Dean 
Milman  : 

"I,  Peter  the  Apostle,  protest,  admonish,  and  conjure  you, 
the  most  Christian  kings,  Pepin,  Charles,  and  Carloman,  with 
all  the  hierarchy,  bishops,  abbots,  priests,  and  all  monks ;  all 
judges,  dukes,  counts,  and  the  whole  people  of  the  Franks. 
The  mother  of  God  likewise  adjures  you,  and  admonishes 
and  commands  you,  she  as  well  as  the  thrones  and  domin- 
ions, and  all  the  hosts  of  heaven,  to  save  the  beloved  city  of 
Borne  from  the  detested  Lombards.  If  ye  hasten,  I,  Peter 
the  Apostle,  promise  you  my  protection  in  this  life  and  in 
the  next^  will  prepare  for  you  the  most  glorious  7nansio7is  in 
heaven,  and  will  bestow  on  you  the  everlasting  joys  of  para- 
dise. Make  common  cause  with  my  people  of  Rome,  and  I 
will  grant  whatever  ye  may  pray  for.  I  conjure  you  not 
to  yield  up  this  city  to  be  lacerated  and  tormented  by  the 
Lombards,  lest  your  own  soids  be  lacerated  and  tormented  in 
hell,  with  the  devil  and  his  pestilential  angels.     Of  all  nations 


O  "Latin  Christianity, "  by  Milman,  vol.  ii.,  p.  424,  note  1. 
O  Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  193. 


PRETENDED  LETTER  FROM  ST.  PETER.      343 

under  heaven,  the  Franks  are  highest  in  the  esteem  of  St. 
Peter ;  to  me  you  owe  all  your  victories.  Obey,  and  obey 
speedily,  and,  by  my  suffrage,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  will  give 
you  in  this  life  length  of  days,  security,  victory ;  in  the  life 
to  come^  will  multiply  his  blessings  upon  you^  among  his 
saints  and  angels.^^^'') 

We  can  account  for  this  letter  and  its  contents  only  upon 
the  supposition  that  its  author  considered  himself  as  stand- 
ing in  the  place  of  God  on  earth,  or  that  he  was  entirely  in- 
different to  the  means  employed,  provided  they  produced 
the  result  he  sought  for.  The  ignorance  and  superstition 
of  the  age  was  such  as  to  encourage  this  mingling  together 
of  divine  and  temporal  things;  and  Stephen  III.  was  the 
kind  of  pope  to  avail  himself  of  it,  notwithstanding  the  im- 
pious and  blasphemous  character  of  the  act.  He  understood 
the  temper  and  position  of  Pepin,  and  knew  that  he  consid- 
ered himself  indebted  to  Pope  Zachary  for  his  crown,  and 
to  the  priests  of  France  for  the  encouragement  of  that  pop- 
ular superstition  which  enabled  him  to  maintain  it  under 
pretense  of  "divine  right."  And  he  did  not  miscalculate. 
Whether  Pepin  believed  that  the  letter  came  from  heaven, 
and  directly  from  St.  Peter,  or  that  the  pope,  as  God's  vice- 
gerent, had  the  prerogative  right  of  committing  so  palpable 
a  forgery,  it  is  of  no  present  consequence  to  inquire.  He 
yielded  to  the  entreaties  of  the  pope,  and  again  advanced 
into  Italy  with  his  army ;  acting,  doubtless,  from  the  con- 
viction that,  if  he  did  not,  the  clergy  would  persuade  the 

C)  "Latin  Christianity,"  vol.  ii.,  p.  424.  Cormenin  gives  this  same  let- 
ter, in  a  somewhat  different  translation,  but  one  which  does  not  make  the 
sense  materially  different  from  the  above.  The  original  Latin,  taken  from 
Labbe,  may  be  found  in  "  The  See  of  Rome  in  the  Middle  Ages,"  by  Reichel. 
London  ed.,  p.  65.  For  Cormenin's  translation,  see  "  History  of  the  Popes," 
vol.  i.,  p.  193.  Du  Pin  refers  to  this  letter  as  "in  St.  Peter  and  Stephen's 
name," but  does  not  publish  it.  Du  Pin's  "Ecclesiastical  History,"  vol.  vi., 
p.  108.  He  attributes  it  to  Pope  Stephen  IJ.,  when  the  transaction  occurred 
during  the  pontificate  of  Stephen  III. 

Archbishop  Kenrick,  although  he  alludes  to  the  relations  between  Stephen 
III.  and  Pepin,  does  not  directly  mention  this  letter,  neither  admitting  or  de- 
nying it ;  yet  he  gives  a  quotation  from  a  letter  which  could  scarcely  have 
been  any  other  than  this. — The  Primacy  of  the  Apostolic  See,  by  Kenrick, 
part  ii.,  p.  261. 


344  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

people  of  France  that  he  was  defiant  to  the  commands  of 
the  apostle,  and  deserved  the  anathemas  of  the  Church. 
This  time,  however,  his  movements  were  attended  with  no 
other  immediate  consequences  than  the  resurrender  of  Ra- 
venna to  the  pope,  and  probably  the  confirmation  of  his  for- 
mer donation.  Cormenin  speaks  of  the  subsequent  deposit 
of  his  "  deed  of  gift "  upon  the  confessional  of  St.  Peter,  by 
Fulrad,  the  counselor  of  the  French  king;^"^)  but  we  have 
already  seen  that  the  probabilities  are  against  the  existence 
of  such  a  document,  and  that  the  gift  of  Pepin  was  only 
verbal. 

Astolphus,  the  Lombard  king,  did  not  long  survive  these 
events.  He  died  in  the  year  756,  when  a  controversy  arose 
about  the  Lombard  crown  between  Didier,  Duke  of  Istria, 
and  Ratchis,  a  monk.  The  latter  gained  Pope  Stephen  to 
his  support  by  promising  not  to  disturb  him  in  his  posses- 
sion of  Ravenna,  and  that  he  would  make  large  donations 
"to  enrich  St.  Peter" — an  object  of  which  the  popes  have 
never  lost  sight.  But  Pepin  did  not  favor  this  arrange- 
ment, and  took  the  side  of  Didier.  The  pope  then,  from 
policy  alone,  abandoned  the  cause  of  the  monk,  and  recog- 
nized Didier  as  the  lawful  sovereign  of  Lombardy.  He 
was  not  disposed,  however,  to  change  sides  so  readily  with- 
out some  reward,  and  succeeded  in  obtaining  from  Didier  a 
concession  of  the  city  of  Fuenza  and  the  duchy  of  Ferrara, 
and  some  other  places  —  so  true  was  he  to  the  purpose  of 
enlarging  the  papal  domains  and  the  establishment  of  the 
temporal  power.  He  soon  after  died,  in  the  year  757,  and 
was  succeeded  by  Paul  I.  The  events  of  the  three  next 
pontificates  have  no  special  bearing  upon  the  question  we 
are  considering,  except  as  showing  that  the  controversies 
about  the  worship  of  images  between  the  popes  and  the 
emperors  continued,  and  that  Didier  still  cherished  the  pur- 
pose of  seizing  upon  the  exarchate  of  Ravenna.  All  the 
plottings  and  political  iixtrigues  of  him  and  the  popes  had 
reference  to  that  object,  each  being  resolved  to  possess  it  at 
every  hazard. 

Pepin  died  in  the  year  768,  and  left  the  kingdom  to  his 

C*)  Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  193. 


CHARLEMAGNE  BECOMES  KING.  345 

two  sons,  Carl  and  Carloman,  the  former  of  whom,  at  the 
death  of  his  brother,  became  the  sole  possessor  of  the 
crown,  by  the  name  of  Charlemagne.  In  the  year  772, 
Adrian  I.  became  pope.  During  his  pontificate,  which  last- 
ed twenty-three  jesiYs,  the  politico -alliance  between  the  pa- 
pacy and  the  French  king  bore  other  fruits,  not  less  condu- 
cive than  those  already  borne  to  the  advancement  of  papal 
power. 

When  Charlemagne  became  king  he  found  all  the  nations 
of  Europe  in  a  state  of  comparative  decrepitude ;  and,  in- 
heriting the  sentiments  and  courage  of  his  father,  resolved 
upon  making  the  French  monarchy  the  controlling  and  all- 
absorbing  power  in  the  West.  Not  satisfied  with  the  pos- 
session of  France  and  Western  Germany,  he  extended  his 
dominion  into  Italy,  Spain,  and  other  parts  of  Germany ; 
w^iich  of  necessity  brought  him  into  immediate  intercourse 
with  the  popes.  Fully  informed  of  the  advantages  his  fa- 
ther had  derived  from  their  employment  of  the  ecclesiastic- 
al power  in  his  behalf,  he  readily  saw  that  his  interests  re- 
quired him  to  make  a  similar  use  of  them.  He  therefore 
gathered  about  his  court  distinguished  "foreign  priests" 
from  all  the  leading  nations;  who,  besides  being  men  of 
great  learning,  were  "the  light  of  the  Church"  and  the  kins- 
men "  of  bishops  and  of  saints."^ ^)  He  professed  strong  at- 
tachment to  the  Roman  Church  and  its  religion,  and  there 
is  no  reason  for  supposing  that  he  was  insincere.  But,  as 
he  understood  it,  the  Church  and  its  teachings  were  de- 
signed as  aids  to  his  political  power.  Beyond  this,  it  is 
probable  that  he  cared  but  little  for  either.  With  these 
opinions,  he  was  readily  induced,  by  the  influences  around 
him,  to  strengthen  the  ecclesiastical  power  in  France.  "  Be- 
ing," says  Michelet,  "  sitre  of  the  pope,  whom  his  family  had 
protected  against  the  Greeks  and  Lombards,"  he  displayed 
his  great  sagacity  as  a  statesman  by  these  movements,  de- 
signed as  they  were  to  bring  all  the  authority  of  the  Church 
to  bear  upon  the  measures  of  his  reign.  Two  measures  were 
specially  conspicuous.  He  "  confirmed  the  institution  of 
tithes,"  which  required  that  one-tenth  of  all  the  taxes  lev- 

C«)  Michelet,  vol.  i.,  p.  114. 


346  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

ied  upon  the  people  should  be  paid  to  the  churches  and  the 
priests.  He  also  freed  the  Church  from  secular  jurisdiction 
— that  is,  made  it  independent  of  the  State — by  a  law,  found 
in  his  Capitularies,  in  these  words  :  "  It  is  our  pleasure  that 
neither  abbots,  nor  presbyters,  nor  deacons,  nor  sub-deacons, 
nor  any  priest  whatsoever,  be  brought  before  the  public  and 
secular  tribunals,  but  be  delivered  for  trial  to  their  bish- 
op."(^")  His  munificence  toward  the  clergy  was  unbound- 
ed. "  He  augmented  their  wealth,  he  enlarged  their  priv- 
ileges, he  confirmed  and  extended  their  immunities;  and, 
were  it  not  that  he  was  one  of  the  greatest  and  wisest 
princes  who  ever  reigned,  some  writers  would  not  have 
hesitated  to  place  him  among  the  weakest  of  mankind."(") 
And  his  direct  dealings  with  the  pope  were  not  less  distin- 
guished for  their  liberality.  He  was  a  consummate  states- 
man—  far  the  greatest  of  his  age — and  was  quite  willing  to 
leave  the  popes  to  the  gratification  of  their  ambition  when 
it  did  not  interfere  with  the  success  of  his  own  measures. 
One  object  he  was  specially  desirous  to  accomplish ;  this 
was,  to  sustain  the  popes  in  their  defiance  of  the  Eastern 
emperors,  that  thereby  the  seat  of  empire  might  be  trans- 
ferred from  the  East  to  the  West. 

Besides  his  wars  with  the  neighboring  nations,  Charle- 
magne had  a  quarrel  with  the  Duke  of  Bavaria,  which  fur- 
nished him  an  opportunity  of  availing  himself  of  the  alliance 
between  the  pope  and  his  father,  and  of  making  religion 
serve  the  purpose  of  promoting  both  his  own  and  the  pope's 
ambition.  Pope  Adrian  I.,  in  full  sympathy  with  his  pur- 
poses and  plans,  took  his  side  against  the  Duke  of  Bavaria, 
and  launched  a  terrible  bull  of  excommunication  against 
him  and  all  his  subjects — not  for  any  offensive  act  against 
religion  or  the  Church,  but  on  account  of  objects  entirely 
temporal.  It  is  necessary  to  observe  the  character  of  this 
bull,  in  order  to  understand  the  progressive  steps  toward 
the  acquisition  of  temporal  power,  and  to  see  with  what  lit- 
tle remorse  of  conscience  sacred  things  were  mingled  with 
political  controversies,  and  made  subservient  to  ambitious 
ends.     If,  in  order  to  make  an  act  infallible^  it  must  concern 


O  Michelet,  p.  115,  note.  CO  Waddington,  pp.  149, 150. 


OUTRAGES  AUTHORIZED  BY  ADRIAN  I.  347 

the  faith  alone,  and  be  addressed  to  the  Universal  Church, 
then  it  would  be  unjust  to  say  that  this  bull  was  stamped 
with  that  character.  But  if,  when  the  pope  speaks  in  the 
name  of  God,  he  speaks  ex  cathedra^  then  Adrian  I.  was  infal- 
lible when  in  this  bull  he  declared  "  that  the  Franks  were  ab- 
solved in  advance  from  all  crimes  they  might  commit  in  the 
enemy's  country;  and  that  Ood commanded them^\)[\\oVi^  his 
vicar,  to  violate  girls ^  murder  women^  children^  and  old  men^ 
to  burn  cities^  and  put  all  the  inhabitants  to  the  sword.^\^^) 

The  obligations  between  the  pope  and  the  king  were,  of 
course,  reciprocal,  and  required  each  to  serve  the  other — the 
one  with  the  thunders  of  excommunication,  and  the  other 
with  the  thunders  of  artillery.  The  pope  had  a  quarrel 
with  the  Duke  of  Beneventum,  because  the  duke  refused 
him  permission  to  make  money  levies  upon  his  subjects  for 
increasing  the  revenues  of  iSt.  Peter  j  and  Charlemagne,  in 
return  for  the  sanction  which  the  Pope  had  given,  in  God^s 
name^  of  all  the  enormities  his  army  might  commit  in  Bava- 
ria, despoiled  the  duke,  by  force,  of  five  of  his  best  cities, 
and  added  them  to  the  domains  of  the  pope !  The  alliance 
now  began  to  bear  richer  and  more  abundant  fruits,  which 
had  become  so  ripened  as  to  be  ready  for  plucking  by  either 
party,  accordingly  as  temporal  interest  or  ambition  stimu- 
lated him.  Adrian  I.  died,  however,  before  they  were  all 
gathered,  and  left  it  to  his  successor,  Leo  III.,  to  compensate 
Charlemagne  for  his  munificent  gift.  This  was  done  by  Leo 
in  a  manner  well  calculated  to  gratify  the  vanity  of  a  less 
ambitious  king  than  Charlemagne.  He  sent  to  him  "  the 
keys  of  the  confessional  of  St.  Peter,  the  standard  of  the  city 
of  Rome,  and  magnificent  presents,"  and  urged  him  to  send 
some  French  lords  to  Rome,  who  should  receive  the  oath  of 


(^)  Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  204.  Such  a  bull  as  this  would  seem  almost  in- 
credible, if  it  were  not  found  in  the  history  of  a  Roman  Catholic  author. 
But  this  is  the  pope  who  absolved  OfFa,  King  of  the  Mercians,  in  England, 
from  the  crime  of  killing  Ethelbert,  the  king  of  the  East  Angles,  upon  the 
condition  that  he  should  allow  Peter  -  pence  to  be  collected  in  England. 
The  same  author  says  that  "avarice  was  his  ruling  passion," and  that  "he 
displayed  remarkable  political  skill  in  the  management  of  the  Church,  His 
supple  and  adroit  spirit  knew  how  to  bend  before  power,  in  order  to  augment 
the  authority  of  Rome,  and  extend  her  rule  over  the  people." — Ihid.,  p.  207. 


348  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

temporal  fidelity  from  the  Romans ;(")  for,  as  yet,  notwith- 
standing the  donation  of  Pepin,  the  pope  had  not  ventured 
to  make  any  pretensions  to  the  rights  of  a  temporal  king. 
It  had  not  then  been  revealed  to  him  that  the  law  of  God 
made  this  necessary  for  the  protection  of  Christianity  and 
the  Church  !  The  presence  of  weaker  and  feebler  kings  than 
Pepin  and  Charlemagne  was  necessary  to  such  a  revelation 
as  this.  Charlemagne  did  not,  of  course,  object  to  being 
made  emperor,  for  that  was  one  of  his  cherished  objects; 
but,  bad  as  the  times  were,  he  had  so  just  a  sense  of  shame, 
that  he  desired  the  vices  of  the  Roman  clergy  to  be  first  re- 
formed. These  were  so  flagrant  that  he  considered  it  a  re- 
proach to  Christianity  that  .they  should  be  tolerated  under 
the  very  eye  of  the  pope,  and  so  wrote  to  Leo  III,  urgino- 
the  application  of  corrective  measures.  Leo,  unwilling  to 
take  issue  with  him  upon  the  subject,  indicated  a  wish  to 
make  the  desired  reform.  But  whatever  efforts  were  made 
in  that  direction  proved  abortive  on  account  of  the  oppo- 
sition of  the  clergy  of  Rome,  who  organized  a  conspiracy 
against  the  pope.  Two  priests,  aided  by  the  monks,  made 
an  attempt  to  take  his  life,  seized  him  in  the  street,  dragged 
him  by  the  beard,  sought  to  break  his  skull  with  stones, 
to  put  out  his  eyes,  and  pull  out  his  tongue;  and  at  last 
plunged  him  into  a  dungeon.  He  was,  however,  released, 
after  several  days  of  confinement ;  when,  fearing  a  renewal 
of  the  attack,  he  invited  Charlemagne  to  visit  Rome,  that  he 
might  more  certainly  secure  his  protection.  The  invitation 
was  accepted,  and  the  great  king  entered  Rome  in  Decem- 
ber, 800,  when  the  pope,  placing,  a  crown  upon  his  head, 
turned  over  to  him  that  part  of  the  empire  with  as  cool  im- 
pudence as  if  it  were  his  to  bestow,  declared  him  emperor, 
crowned  as  such  "  hy  the  hand  of  God  P"*  Two  objects  were 
accomplished  by  this  stroke  of  policy — the  pope's  treason  to 
the  empire  was  made  effectual,  and  Charlemagne  was  made 
''^Emperor  of  the  Momatis^''  which  placed  the  diadem  of  the 
Caesars  upon  his  brow\(^*)  The  Eastern  emperors  were  now 
supplanted  at  Rome,  and  the  King  of  France  was  placed  at 
the  head  of  a  great  Western  empire !     Of  course  he  could 

C)  Coimenin,  p.  207.  C*)  Fredet,  p.  191 ;  Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  209. 


CHARLEMAGNE  BECOMES  EMPEROR.       349 

do  nothing  less,  in  return  for  the  crown  given  him  by  the 
pope,  than  confirm  the  donation  of  Pepin,  his  father,  to  the 
Church;  which  it  is  said  he  did  without  hesitation.  By 
this  means  he  acquired  the  title  of  "  the  favorite  son  of  the 
Church,"  which  title  has  been  ever  since  applied  to  all  the 
monarchs  of  France  who  have  remained  true  to  the  Church 
and  the  papacy.  He  was  also  repaid  by  the  pontifical 
blessing,  and  furnished  with  a  copy  of  the  canon  laws  of  the 
Church,  from  which  it  was  designed  he  should  learn  the  nat- 
ure and  extent  of  his  obligations  of  obedience  to  the  pope, 
and  the  necessity  of  preserving  the  union  between  the  State 
and  the  Church.^')  Most  unfortunate  has  it  been  for  France 
that  this  code  of  canon  laws  was  ever  assented  to  by  her 
great  king,  or  taken  by  him  into  her  dominions.  It  tied  her 
fast  to  the  car  of  the  papacy,  and  through  tribulation,  an- 
guish, revolution,  bloodshed,  and  every  form  of  suffering,  it 
has  at  last  pulled  her  down  into  the  abyss.  The  magnifi- 
cence of  her  scenery,  the  grandeur  of  her  cities,  the  fertility 
of  her  soil,  the  beauty  of  her  climate,  the  bravery  of  her  ar- 
mies, the  genius  of  her  children,  all  combined,  could  not  ex- 
cite in  the  minds  of  her  people  a  sufficient  sense  of  their  own 
manhood  to  save  her.  With  her  fate  sealed  to  that  of  the 
papacy,  she  and  it  have  sunk  into  a  common  grave.  When 
her  day  of  resurrection  shall  come,  she  must  clothe  herself 
in  new  robes,  leave  the  papal  wreck  to  decay  amidst  the 
dehris  of  fallen  and  lost  nations,  construct  with  her  own 
hands  a  new  grandeur,  and  place  her  people  where  they  yet 
deserve  to  be — far  forward  in  the  ranks  of  those  who  know 
what  it  is  to  shelter  and  protect  themselves  by  institutions 
of  their  own  creation,  without  the  aid  of  kings  or  popes,  or 
any  other  of  the  mediaeval  forms  of  tyranny. 

It  is  important  to  know,  in  this  connection,  the  extent  of 
the  territory  granted  by  Charlemagne  to  the  pope,  in  order 
that  the  precise  extent  of  the  papal  domains  may  be  ascer- 
tained. Fredet  confines  it  to  the  provinces  granted  by  Pep- 
in.    Speaking  of  the  popes  becoming  independent  of  secular 

(^^)  Du  Pin  says  that  "Adrian  gave  to  Charlemagne  the  code  of  Dionys- 
ius  Exiguus;"  with  additions  '■'■  favorable  to  the  pretensions  of  the  Court  of 
Rome."  These,  he  says,  however,  were  ^^ forged  when  the  False  Decretals 
were  made,  and  perhaps  by  the  same  author." — Du  Pin,  vol.  vi.,  p.  115. 


350  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

princes,  he  says :  "  This  independence  they  obtained  through 
the  instrumentality  of  Pepin  and  his  successor  Charlemagne, 
who  conferred  on  the  popes  such  an  extent  of  temporal  pow- 
er as  might  enable  them  freely  to  exercise  their  spiritual 
authority. "(^^)  At  another  place  he  says,  "  Charlemagne 
manifested  his  attachment  to  the  Apostolic  See  by  ratifying 
and  augmenting  the  donation  which  Pepin  had  made  in  its 
favor;"  but  he  does  not  state  in  what  the  augmentation 
consisted.  (")  He  does  not  speak  of  any  additional  grant 
made  in  the  year  800.  Cormenin  is  not  more  specific,  al- 
though he  speaks  of  large  donations  given  to  several  church- 
es in  Rome.  Waddington  says  "he  renewed  and  even  in- 
creased the  grant"  of  Pepin. ('^)  Reichel  says  he  "ratified 
the  donation  of  his  father,  Pepin,  by  ceding  to  the  pope  the 
exarchate  and  the  Pentapolis."(^^)  Dean  Milman  is  more 
satisfactory,  and  limits  the  grant  to  those  cities  which  after- 
ward paid  homage  and  delivered  their  keys  to  the  pope  — 
Ravenna,  Rimini,  Pesaro,  Fano,  Cesena,  Sinigaglia,  lesi,  For- 
limpopoli,  Forli,  with  the  castle  Sussibio,  Montefeltro,  Acer- 
ra,  Monte  di  Lucano,  Serra,  San  Marino,  Bobbio,  Urbino, 
Cagli,  Luciolo,  Gubbio,  Comachio,  and  Narni,  taken  from  the 
Dukeof  Spoleto.n 

Thus  we  are  enabled  to  see  that  neither  by  Pepin  nor  Char- 
lemagne was  there  any  grant  of  temporal  power  in  Mome 
made  to  the  popes.  If  it  was  designed  by  either  of  them  to 
make  them  temporal  princes  at  all,  their  authority,  by  the 
very  nature  of  the  concessions,  was  limited  to  the  provinces 
taken  from  the  Lombards  and  from  the  Duke  of  Spoleto, 
and  held  by  conquest.  There  was  no  conquest  of  Rome  by 
Pepin  or  Charlemagne.  After  the  grant  of  Pepin,  the  pope 
was  left  a  subject  of  the  Eastern  emperor,  still  in  rebellion. 
But  after  that  of  Charlemagne,  his  relations  were  changed, 
and  he  became  a  subject  of  the  "  emperor  of  the  Romans." 
It  is  perfectly  manifest,  from  all  the  history  of  those  times, 
that  Charlemagne  did  not  intend  to  leave  a  king  in  any 
part  of  his  dominions  with  superior  authority  to  his  own, 
or  even  with  equal  authority.     When  the  iron  crown  was 


('")  Fredet,  p.  185.  (")  Ihid.,  p.  187.  C')  Waddington,  p.  149. 

n  Reichel,  p.  69.  (")  Milman's  "Latin  Christianity,"  vol.  ii.,  p.  427. 


THE  POPE  A  SUBJECT  OF  CHARLEMAGNE.  351 

placed  upon  his  brow  by  the  pope,  he  became  the  sovereign 
of  the  Western  empire,  which  included  Rome.  Mr.  Hallam, 
referring  to  this  sovereignty,  says:  "Money  was  coined  in 
his  name,  and  an  oath  of  fidelity  teas  taken  by  the  clergy 
and  peopled {^^)  Undoubtedly,  there  was  a  considerable  ju- 
risdiction and  authority  conferred  upon  the  popes,  but  it 
was  subordinate  to  the  jurisdiction  and  authority  of  the 
emperor.  It  was  not  temporal  power  in  the  sense  claimed 
by  the  papacy.  If  so,  the  oath  of  fidelity  w^ould  have  been 
taken  by  the  Roman  people  to  the  pope,  and  not  to  Charle- 
magne. It  may  be  assumed,  therefore,  as  a  well- attested 
historic  fact,  that  up  to  the  time  of  Charlemagne's  death, 
which  occurred  in  the  year  814,  the  popes  possessed  no  such 
temporal  power  in  Rome  as  conferred  upon  them  the  right 
to  prescribe  the  laws,  administer  the  government,  or  exact 
civil  allegiance  to  themselves.  Whatever  poAver  they  exer- 
cised, beyond  that  necessary  for  the  mere  protection  of  the 
property  of  the  Church,  was  usurpation.  And  when  they 
carried  this  usurpation  to  the  extent  of  uniting  the  Church 
and  the  State  in  the  territory  since  known  as  the  Papal 
States,  they  impaired  the  spiritual  strength  of  the  Church, 
retarded  the  progress  of  true  religion,  and  laid  the  founda- 
tion for  that  series  of  unfortunate  measures  by  means  of 
which  the  people  were  held  in  ignorance,  superstition,  and 
civil  bondage  for  hundreds  of  years,  until  they  were  res- 
cued by  the  great  reformation  of  the  sixteenth  century. 

That  the  popes  were  both  ready  and  willing  to  usurp  tem- 
poral authority,  is  abundantly  shown  by  history.  In  all  the 
proceedings  here  recorded  there  was  nothing  of  a  religious 
nature  —  nothing  that  concerned  the  Christian  faith — noth- 
ing to  remind  one  of  the  devotion  and  simplicity  by  which 
the  apostolic  times  were  so  much  distinguished.  They 
were  the  mere  schemings  of  ambitious  and  selfish  politi- 
cians, whose  sole  object  was  to  concentrate  temporal  pow- 
er in  their  own  hands,  as  the  means  of  bringing  the  people 
in  subjection  to  themselves.  They  differ  from  similar  acts 
of  other  despots  only  in  this,  that  they  were  accompanied 
by  an  almost  total  disregard  for  the  teachings  of  Christ  and 

(*0  Hallara's  "Middle  Ages,"  p.  22  :  Harper  &  Brother's  ed. 


352  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

the  apostles,  while  at  the  same  time  the  name  of  God  was 
constantly  invoked  to  sanction  every  form  of  oppression  and 
outrage.  The  popes  even  allowed  the  creed  of  the  Church 
to  be  changed  by  the  emperor,(")  in  exchange  for  the  priv- 
ileges he  conferred  upon  them.  Wealth  and  power  seemed 
to  be  the  only  objects  worth  striving  for,  and  corruption  be- 
came almost  universal.  The  papacy  was  at  once  elevated 
beyond  any  thing  known  in  its  previous  history,  and  imme- 
diately commenced  to  interfere  in  temporal  affairs.  The 
popes,  separating  themselves  from  the  Eastern  empire,  as- 
sumed to  direct  the  domestic  affairs  of  nations,  impiously 
claiming  that  whatever  power  they  had  derived  from  Pep- 
in or  Charlemagne  was  the  gift  of  God,  and  that,  therefore, 
God  had  appointed  them  to  rule  the  world  in  his  name ! 
They  accordingly  entered  upon  the  career  of  territorial  con- 
quest, and  succeeded  in  further  extorting  from  Louis  le  De- 
bonnaire,  the  son  and  successor  of  Charlemagne,  the  right 
of  sovereignty  over  Campania,  Calabria,  Naples,  Salerno, 
and  the  islands  of  Corsica,  Sardinia,  and  Sicily,  although 
Sicily  did  not  belong  to  France  by  any  title  known  to  the 
law  of  nations,  even  in  those  days  of  lawless  conquest.  By 
these  and  other  kindred  means  the  popes  acquired  their 
temporal  power,  and  used  it  so  ambitiously,  and  with  so 
little  regard  for  the  rights  of  others,  as  at  last  to  reduce 
all  the   sovereigns   of  Europe   into   obedience.      Cormenin 


"The  sovereigns  of  the  West  placed  armies  under  their 
command,  ruined  empires,  exterminated  people  in  the  name 
of  St.  Peter,  and  sent  the   spoils   of  the  vanquished  to   in- 

(")  The  controversy  between  the  Eastern  and  Western  churches  in  refer- 
ence to  the  procession  of  the  Holy  Spirit — whether  it  proceeded  from  the  Fa- 
ther alone,  or  from  the  Father  and  the  Son — was  carried  on  in  an  acrimoni- 
ous spirit  for  many  years.  The  Roman  Church,  while  maintaining  the  lat- 
ter doctrine,  refused  to  permit  the  creed  to  be  sung  with  the  addition  of  the 
"Filioque."  Charlemagne,  however,  convened  a  council  at  Aix  la  Chapelle, 
in  the  year  809,  to  decide  the  question  ;  and  afterward  commanded  Pope 
Leo  III.  to  confirm  its  decision,  and  to  allow  the  "Filioque"  to  be  added 
to  the  creed  and  to  be  sung  with  it.  The  pope,  though  "not  pleased  with 
this  addition,"  yielded  to  the  dictation  of  the  king,  being  afraid  to  incur  his 
displeasure. — Du  Pin's  Eccl.  Hist.,  vol.  vii.,  p.  114;  History  of  Doctrines, 
by  Hagenbach,  vol.  i.,  pp.  468,  469. 


ECCLESIASTICAL  MONAKCHY  IN  ROME.  353 

crease  the  wealth  of  the  Roman  clergy,  and  to  support  the 
monks  in  idleness  and  debauchery."{") 

Influence  and  power  thus  acquired  were  used,  of  course, 
for  selfish  and  sinister  ends ;  for  men  in  all  ages  have  been 
in  this  respect  the  same.  And  it  was  so  used  by  the  popes 
that  the  government  over  the  Papal  States  became  altogeth- 
er ecclesiastical.  It  was  conducted  entirely  by  the  popes, 
by  the  assistance  of  their  cardinals  and  priests,  all  of  whom 
were  created  by  the  popes,  and  were  the  mere  slaves  and 
creatures  of  their  will.  The  people  were  treated  as  if  born 
only  for  the  purpose  of  being  ruled,  and  of  contributing  to 
the  pride  and  elevation  of  their  rulers.  The  popular  degra- 
dation during  the  Middle  Ages  contributed  to  this;  and,  in 
order  that  there  should  be  no  change  in  this  condition  of  af- 
fairs, and  that  the  people  should  be  kept  so  ignorant  as  not 
to  aspire  to  any  higher  position,  they  were  either  deprived 
of  all  opportunity  of  education,  or,  if  educated  at  all,  it  was 
only  in  ecclesiastical  matters,  and  under  the  special  direc- 
tion of  the  priests,  who  took  good  care  to  see  that  their  first 
and  last  lesson  was  obedience.  Every  thing  was  ecclesias- 
tical ;  and  the  power  of  excommunication,  which  was  held 
in  great  dread  by  the  ignorant  population,  was  so  pervert- 
ed from  its  original  meaning  and  design,  that  it  was  em- 
ployed as  the  means  of  exacting  submission  to  the  papacy 
in  all  matters  connected  with  the  Government  as  well  as 
the  Church,  and  in  the  most  common  and  trifling  aflfairs  of 
life.  (")      The  popes,  having  achieved  success  by  tempting 

(")  Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  213. 

(*")  "Very  few  of  these  exertions  of  the  supreme  authority  of  the  Vicar 
of  Christ  have  any  bearing  on  the  interests  of  religion.  The  political  in- 
trigues of  the  day,  the  temporal  possessions  of  the  Church,  or  the  subordi- 
nation of  the  hierarchy  are,  in  almost  all  instances,  the  objects  of  the  anath- 
ema. How  the  awful  authority  over  the  souls  of  men  was  degraded  to  the 
level  of  the  pettiest  interests  is  seen  when  some  audacious  scoundrels  stole 
the  horses  of  the  pope  during  his  progress  thiough  France.  He  promptly 
excommunicates  the  unknown  thieves,  unless  the  beasts  shall  be  returned 
within  three  days ;  and  he  takes  advantage  of  the  opportunity  to  include  in 
the  curse  some  knaves  who  had  previously  pilfered  his  plate  while  staying  at 
the  Abbey  of  Flavigny — as  he  shrewdly  suspects,  with  the  connivance  of  the 
holy  monks  there.  That  bishops  were  not  disinclined  to  follow  the  example 
of  their  chief,  and  to  use  their  control  over  salvajtion  for  their  personal  bene- 

23 


354  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

the  ambition  of  kings,  and  conferring  crowns  and  king- 
doms upon  them,  on  the  condition  that  they  should  ac- 
knowledge the  gift  as  made  in  accordance  with  the  divine 
command,  had  no  difficulty  in  making  an  ignorant  and  su- 
perstitious population  believe  that  all  the  laws  they  pre- 
scribed were  equally  a  part  of  God's  laws ;  that  obedience 
paid  to  them  was  obedience  to  God ;  and,  therefore,  that 
any  act  of  disobedience  would  not  only  deprive  them  of  the 
protection  of  the  Church  in  this  life,  but  consign  them  inev- 
itably to  eternal  tortures  in  the  next.  And  thus  the  Church 
and  the  State  were  completely  united — the  State  obeying 
the  Church.  The  Church,  in  fact,  became  the  State  by  hold- 
ing it  in  subordination.  The  people  alone  were  punished ; 
the  ecclesiastics  never.  They  were  an  exclusive  and  privi- 
leged class,  who  considered  all  others  as  mere  "hewers  of 
wood  and  drawers  of  water "  for  their  superiors,  of  whom 
they  were  the  chief.  The  great  and  controlling  object 
was  to  make  Rome  what  she  had  been  in  pagan  times,  the 
"mistress  of  the  world;"  so  that  the  pope,  as  hev pope-king, 
might  make  and  unmake  other  kings,  build  up  and  destroy 
governments,  and  thus  subject  all  mankind  to  his  dominion, 
under  the  impious  and  shameless  pretense  that  God  had  so 
provided  in  his  law!  The  foundation  of  the  whole  struct- 
ure of  government  was  this :  that  the  pope  was  ordained 
king  by  Almighty  God,  and  ruled  by  divine  authority ;  and 
consequently,  the  subject  was  bound  to  passive  obedience ; 
and,  not  rendering  this,  offended  God  and  committed  a  sin 
for  which  he  deserved  punishment  at  the  hands  of  the 
Church  !  This  is  precisely  the  kind  of  government  which 
Pope  Pius  IX.  defends  in  his  Encyclical  and  Syllabus,  and 
which  he  prefers  to  any  of  those  constructed  after  the  mod- 


fit,  is  apparent  from  the  treatment  of  royalty  in  Wales  about  this  time.  Tew- 
dwr,  King  of  Brecknock,  profanely  stole  Bishop  Libiau's  dinner  from  the  Ab- 
bey of  Llancore,  when  the  angry  prelate  excommunicated  him,  and  exacted 
an  enormous  fine  as  the  price  of  reconciliation  ;  and  when  Brockmeal,  King 
of  Gwent,  and  his  family  were  anathematized  by  Bishop  Cyfeiliawg  for 
some  personal  offense,  the  fee  for  removing  the  censure  was  a  plate  of  pure 
gold  the  size  of  the  bishop's  face.  A  power  so  persistently  and  so  ignobly 
abused  requires  something  more  than  merely  moral  force  to  insure  respect 
and  obedience." — Studies  in  Church  History,  by  Henry  C.  Lea,  p.  324. 


PAPAL  GOVERNMENT.        »  355 

em  forms,  and  especially  to  that  of  the  United  States.  It 
is  the  kind  of  government  which  he  requires  his  followers 
to  defend  as  a  necessary  part  of  their  religious  faith ;  and 
it  is  the  kind  of  government  which  his  hierarchy  in  this 
country  would  substitute  to-morrow,  if  they  had  the  pow- 
er, for  the  popular  institutions  under  which  our  nation  has 
grown  to  its  present  greatness  and  distinction. 


356  THBF  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 


CHAPTER  Xn. 

The  Popes  Subjects  of  the  Eastern  Empire. — The  Ninth  Century. — The 
Emperor  Leo  V.  and  Pope  Pascal  I. — Image-worship. — Church  of  St. 
CeciHa  in  Rome. — Louis  le  Debonnaire. — Factions  at  Rome. — Constitu-. 
tion  of  Lothaire. — Eugenius  II.  and  Valentine. — Gregory  IV. — Sergius. 
— Death  of  Pope  Leo  IV. — The  Alleged  Popess  Joan. — Peter-pence. — 
East  separates  from  West. — Nicholas  I.  claims  Universal  Power. — His 
Manner  of  exercising  it. — Boniface  VI.  poisoned  by  Stephen  VII. — Trial 
of  Dead  Pope. — The  Pseudo-Isidorian  Decretals. — Victor  I.  and  the  Cel- 
ebration of  Easter. — Polycarp  and  Anacetus. — Irenaeus. — The  Character 
of  the  Decretals. — The  Papal  System  based  upon  them. — All  False  and 
Forged. 

If,  as  Pius  IX.  and  his  Jesuit  allies  affirm,  the  temporal 
power  of  the  pope  is  included  in  the  spiritual,  and  has,  like 
it,  a  divine  origin,  it  must  necessarily  have  a  like  univer- 
sality with  Christianity  itself.  It  is  in  this  sense  that  it  is 
claimed  to  belong  to  "the  primacy  of  Peter,"  and  is  con- 
sidered essential  to  the  pope's  ecclesiastical  supremacy  over 
the  world.  Our  investigations  into  its  origin  and  growth, 
therefore,  should  be  limited  only  by  the  means  within  our 
reach. 

If  it  is  in  reality  divine,  and  necessary,  either  at  Rome  or 
elsewhere,  to  the  existence  and  dissemination  of  true  relig- 
ion, and  if  the  liberalism  and  civilization  of  society  based 
upon  principles  in  opposition  to  it  are  injurious  instead  of 
beneficial  to  mankind,  then  its  legitimacy,  with  all  its  at- 
tendant authority  and  consequences,  should  be  conceded,  in 
order  that  the  papacy  may  have  supreme  jurisdiction  over 
the  world,  and  be  able  to  bring  all  laws  and  institutions 
into  harmony  with  its  own  conceptions  of  the  divine  will. 
But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  it  has  been  the  result  of  usurpa- 
tion, fraud,  and  imposture,  and  if  the  world  has  been  im- 
proved and  advanced  in  proportion  as  it  has  escaped  and 
separated  from  its  influence,  then  those  who  are  now  so 
clamorous  for  its  restoration  should  be  held  to  be  unsafe 


THE  APOSTLES  HAD  NO  TEMPORAL  POWER.         357 

counselors,  and  be  dealt  with  accordingly.  But  whether  it 
is  the  one  or  the  other — whether  it  is  to  be  restored  at 
Rome  or  in  any  other  part  of  the  world — the  study  of  its 
history  is  in  every  sense  instructive,  inasmuch  as  we  can  in 
no  other  way  be  brought  into  familiarity  with  the  papacy, 
or  comprehend  fully  the  nature  and  character  of  the  extraor- 
dinary pretensions  now  set  up  in  its  behalf.  We  should 
not  expect  good  and  beneficent  results  to  fi'Ow  from  that 
which  is  founded  upon  fraud  and  wrong,  if  it  shall  appear 
to  have  been  thus  founded. 

The  question  is  constantly  recurring — why  should  there 
have  been  such  delay  in  the  establishment  of  this  tremen- 
dous power,  if  Christ  or  the  apostles  designed  that  belief  in 
its  necessity  should  be  made  an  essential  and  indispensable 
part  of  the  system  of  Christian  faith?  Manifestly  they  did 
not  so  design,  or  they  would  have  taught  it  by  some  word 
or  sign  which  would  have  come  down  to  our  age,  by  the 
Scriptures,  or  by  tradition  from  the  apostles.  But  nothing 
of  this  kind  has  reached  us  by  either  of  these  modes.  Paul 
was  imprisoned  and  martyred  at  Rome  by  the  civil  author- 
ity;  and,  if  Peter  was  ever  there,  he  met  a  similar  fate.  The 
several  persecutions  through  which  the  early  Christians  pass- 
ed originated  with,  and  were  conducted  by,  the  same  author- 
ity. And  nowhere,  in  any  history  of  the  first  centuries,  is 
there  a  single  word  afiirming  that  either  Peter  or  Paul,  or 
any  bishop  of  the  Roman  or  any  other  church,  possessed  the 
power  of  a  temporal  prince.  On  the  other  hand,  in  those 
primitive  days  of  the  Church  the  bishops  and  clergy  de- 
voted themselves  to  the  work  given  them  to  do  by  the  Mas- 
ter, and  made  it  the  study  and  effort  of  their  lives  to  imitate 
his  example  of  benevolence,  humility,  and  love.  They  did 
not  strive  after  the  honors,  wealth,  or  power  of  this  world — 
after  temporal  sceptres  and  the  crowns  of  kings — but  after 
the  salvation  of  immortal  souls.  And  yet  he  who  to-day  de- 
nies either  the  lawfulness  or  necessity  of  the  pope's  temporal 
power,  if  he  belongs  to  the  Roman  Church,  is  excommuni- 
cated because  he  violates  the  true  faith ;  and  if  he  do  not, 
is  denounced,  cursed,  and  anathematized  as  a  heretic.  And 
whole  books  are  written,  with  learning  and  wonderful  inge- 
nuity, to  prove  that  Christ's  Church  can  not  exist  without  it  I 


358  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

The  pope  himself  sends  forth  from  his  pretended  prison  his 
lamentations  at  its  loss,  and  his  followers  forthwith  com- 
bine themselves  into  a  compact  and  formidable  organization, 
demand  assistance  from  the  governments,  threaten  another 
bloody  crusade,  and  pledge  themselves  never  to  remit  their 
efforts  until  the  crown  of  royalty  is  again  placed  upon  the 
papal  brow. 

We  have  seen  that  this  power  did  not  exist  in  any  form 
before  the  separation  of  Rome  from  Constantinople — of  the 
West  from  the  East — and  also  the  effect  of  this  separation 
upon  its  acquisition.  This  brings  us  to  still  more  solid 
ground — to  the  investigation  of  events  which,  although  not 
entirely  free  from  difficulty,  have  a  better  foundation. 

Mr.  Hallam,  who  is  accepted  as  undoubted  authority  on 
all  hands,  says:  "The  popes  appear  to  have  possessed  some 
measure  of  temporal  power,  even  while  the  city  was  profess- 
edly governed  by  the  exarchs  of  Ravenna,  in  the  name  of 
the  Eastern  empire.  This  power  became  more  extensive 
after  her  separation  from  Constantinople.  It  was,  however, 
subordinate  to  the  undeniable  sovereignty  of  the  new  impe- 
rial family,  who  were  supposed  to  enter  upon  all  the  rights 
of  their  predecessors.  There  was  always  an  imperial  officer, 
or  prefect,  in  that  city,  to  render  criminal  justice;  an  oath 
of  allegiance  to  the  emperor  was  taken  by  the  people ;  and 
upon  any  irregular  election  of  a  pope,  a  circumstance  by  no 
means  unusual,  the  emperors  held  themselves  entitled  to  in- 
terpose. But  the  spirit  and  even  the  institutions  of  the  Ro- 
mans were  republican." (^) 

Archbishop  Kenrick  is  not  ingenuous  when  he  quotes  the 
first  two  sentences  of  the  above  extract  to  show  the  exist- 
ence of  the  temporal  power  before  the  separation  from  Con- 
stantinople, and  its  increase  "  on  her  separation  from  Con- 
stantinople." By  the  omission  of  all  the  latter  part  of  what 
Mr.  Hallam  says,  he  fails  to  show  the  "  undeniable  sovereign- 
ty "  of  the  empire,  that  an  oath  of  allegiance  to  it  was  re- 
quired, and  that  the  emperor  had  the  right  to  interfere  even 
in  the  election  of  a  pope.     Why  this  omission  ?    Manifestly 

C)  Hallam's  "Middle  Ages,"  ch.  iii.,  part  i.,  pp.  12G,  127.  Harper  & 
Brothers'  ed.,  1843. 


BEGINNING  OF  THE  NINTH  CENTURY.  359 

because  the  whole  of  what  Mr.  Hallam  says  repudiates  all 
idea  of  any  sovereignty  except  that  possessed  by  the  emper- 
ors— a  concession  which  even  so  fair  a  man  as  Archbishop 
Kenrick  could  not  make  while  held  in  the  toils  of  the  papa- 
cy. But  his  omission  is  not  so  bad  as  his  misquotation. 
For  the  purpose  of  making  it  appear  that  the  immediate  ef- 
fect of  the  separation  of  Rome  from  Constantinople  was  a 
great  increase  of  the.  temporal  power,  with  the  consent  of 
the  King  of  France,  he  quotes  the  second  sentence  in  the 
above  extract  from  Mr.  Hallam,  thus :  "  This  power  became 
more  extensive  07i  her  separation  from  Constantinople. "Q 
Mr.  Hallam  did  uot  use  this  language.  The  word  employed 
by  him  is"«/'iJer,"not"o/i;"  "this  power  became  more  exten- 
sive after  her  separation  from  Constantinople."  To  say  that 
the  result  was  produced  "  07i  the  separation,"  is  equivalent 
to  stating  that  it  followed  directly  as  a  consequence ;  where- 
as if  it  were  after  that  event,  the  growth  may  have  been  slow 
and  gradual,  each  step  the  work  of  usurpation.  And  this  is 
Mr.  Hallam's  meaning,  which  Archbishop  Kenrick  endeavors 
to  obscure  by  misquoting  him. 

The  ninth  century  opened  under  the  influence  of  the  new 
order  of  things.  For  eight  hundred  years  Christianity  had 
existed  in  the  world,  and  had  grown,  strengthened,  and 
prospered,  under  the  guardianship  of  bishops  and  priests 
who  had  no  jurisdiction  over  temporal  aflairs.  Even  the 
bishops  of  Rome,  with  all  their  pride  and  ambition,  had 
been  limited  in  their  authority  to  spiritual  affairs,  and  the 
occasional  claims  they  set  up  for  an  enlargement  of  their 
powers  served  only  to  show  them  that  no  such  enlargement 
could  ever  be  obtained  with  the  consent  of  the  people,  and 
that  if  obtained  at  all,  it  must  be  the  result  of  a  combi- 
nation with  princes  —  a  conspiracy  against  popular  govern- 
ment. They  well  knew  that  it  would  be  impossible  to  ac- 
quire the  possession  of  unlimited  power  in  Rome  without 
the  accomplishment  of  two  things — successful  revolt  against 
the  Eastern  emperors,  and  the  destruction  of  the  Roman  re- 
public. The  achievement  of  the  first  gave  them  the  means 
of  bringing  about  the  last  result. 

O  Kenrick,  p.  261. 


360  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

JThe  immediate  consequence  of  the  protection  given  to 
the  popes  by  the  French  monarchs  was  the  exercise  of  ty- 
rannical authority  over  the  inferior  bishops  and  clergy,  the 
object  being  to  make  the  single  will  of  the  pope  the  gov- 
erning authority  of  the  Church,  not  only  in  Rome,  but  all 
over  the  Christian  world.  Notwithstanding  the  recognized 
independence  of  the  several  churches  during  the  apostolic 
times  and  for  centuries  afterward,  and  the  unity  of  faith 
which  had  been  then  preserved  by  the  diversities  of  local 
government,  papal  ambition  soon  became  so  all-absorbing 
as  to  see  no  other  motive  in  the  management  of  church  af- 
fairs but  its  own  gratification.  Cormenin,  referring  to  the 
change  thus  produced  in  religion,  says: 

" holy  traditions  were  despised,  the  morality  of  Christ 

was  outraged  ;  the  orthodoxy  of  the  Church  no  longer  con- 
sisted in  any  thing  but  the  sovereignty  of  the  pope,  the  ado- 
ration of  images,  and  the  invocation  of  saints;  in  sacred 
singing,  the  solemnity  of  masses,  and  the  pomps  of  cere- 
monies ;  in  the  consecration  of  temples,  splendid  churches, 
monastic  vows,  and  pilgrimages. 

"  Rome  imposed  its  fanaticism  and  its  superstitions  on  all 
the  other  churches ;  morality,  faith,  and  true  piety  were  re- 
placed by  cupidity,  ambition,  and  luxury ;  the  ignorance  of 
the  clergy  was  so  profound  that  a  knowledge  of  the  singing 
of  the  Lord's  Prayer,  the  creed,  and  the  service  of  the  mass 
was  all  that  was  demanded  from  princes  and  ecclesiastical 
dignitaries."  C) 

Pascal  I.  became  pope  in  the  year  817.  Leo  V.,  the  Em- 
peror of  the  East,  and  Theodore,  Patriarch  of  Constantino- 
ple, sent  nuncios  to  him  with  the  view  of  reconciling  the 
disagreement  between  the  Eastern  and  Western  Christians 
in  reference  to  the  worship  of  images.  But  the  pope,  fear- 
ing that  a  reconciliation  of  this  kind  would  lead  to  the  im- 
pairment of  his  papal  influence  and  put  an  end  to  the  alli- 
ance with  France  —  and  caring  far  more  for  his  temporal 
power  than  for  the  restoration  of  harmonj^  in  the  Church 
—  refused  to  receive  the  nuncios,  or  to  hear  any  sugges- 
tions of  compromise.     He  drove  them  out  of  Rome  in  dis- 

Q)  Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  pp.  211,  212. 


ENCOURAGEMENT  OF  SUPERSTITION.  361 

grace,  and,  relying  upon  the  protection  of  the  King  of  France, 
had  the  impudence,  soon  after,  to  send  legates  to  Constanti- 
nople, and  command  the  emperor  to  restore  the  worship  of 
images.  How  much,  at  that  time,  a  few  mild  words,  and  the 
meekness  and  charity  of  true  Christianity,  would  have  done 
for  the  cause  of  genuine  religion  may  be  seen  by  those  who 
will  examine  the  history  of  those  times.  If  the  conciliatory 
spirit  of  the  Eastern  emperor  had  been  reciprocated  by  the 
Roman  pontiff,  the  East  and  the  West  might  have  been 
to-day  united  in  Christian  bonds,  and  the  Church  of  Rome 
might  have  spread  her  spiritual  influence  over  all  the  world. 
But  other  objects  filled  the  mind  of  Pope  Pascal  I.,  who  was 
determined  to  maintain  his  own  authority,  whatever  the  re- 
sult to  Christianity  and  the  Church.  His  stubbornness  in- 
vited, naturally,  a  corresponding  degree  of  illiberality  on 
the  part  of  the  emperor,  who  caused  the  pope's  envoys  to 
be  whipped  through  the  streets  of  Constantinople,  and  the 
image- worshipers  within  his  dominions  to  be  treated  with 
harshness  and  severity.  The  pope  now  resorted  to  artifice 
to  maintain  himself.  He  invited  the  image- worshipers  of 
the  East  to  come  to  Rome,  promising  them  protection.  He 
rebuilt  monasteries  and  churches  for  their  accommodation, 
and,  having  exhausted  his  revenues  in  this  undertaking,  cun- 
ningly contrived  an  appeal  to  the  superstition  of  his  sub- 
jects, in  order  to  extort  further  contributions  from  them. 
After  rebuilding  the  Church  of  St.  Cecilia,  he  placed  her 
shrine  upon  its  high  altar;  but  the  remains  of  the  saint, 
who  had  been  dead  about  six  hundred  years,  were  wanting 
to  give  sanctity  to  the  place,  and  to  excite  the  superstition 
of  the  attendants.  With  the  view  of  discovering  them,  he 
convoked  the  people  on  Sunday,  and,  in  their  presence,  fell 
into  a  supernatural  sleep.  After  awaking,  he  declared  that 
Cecilia  had  appeared  to  him  in  a  vision,  and  pointed  with 
her  finger  to  the  place  of  her  interment !  He  visited  the 
spot,  took  a  spade,  dug  up  the  earth,  and  "discovered  the 
body  of  the  saint  clothed  in  a  robe  of  tissue  of  gold,"  and 
with  "  linen  rags  freshly  impregnated  xcith  her  blood P\*) 

{*)  Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  214  ;   "Encyclopaedia  Americana,"  vol.  iii.,  p.  21, 
article  Cecilia. 


362  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

These  relics  were  removed  to  the  church  :  the  faithful  were 
thereby  excited  to  contribute  largely  of  their  wealth  to  the 
pontifical  treasury,  and  an  example  was  thus  set  which  led 
to  like  imposture  and  fraud  to  such  an  extent  that  innumer- 
able saints  were  fabricated  in  order  that  money  might  be 
raised  by  the  sale  of  their  bones  —  a  practice  which  has 
been  carried  to  such  disgraceful  and  ridiculous  extent  that 
the  wood  of  the  true  cross,  the  hair  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  and 
that  of  St.  John  the  Baptist,  a  part  of  the  body  of  Christ 
himself,  and  hundreds  of  other  equally  impossible  relics, 
have  been,  from  time  to  time,  fraudulently  imposed  as  gen- 
uine upon  the  ignorant  and  deluded  followers  of  the  papa- 
cy. Such  a  state  of  things  could  not  possibly  exist  without 
almost  universal  corruption  and  degeneracy  at  Rome,  espe- 
cially among  the  popes,  priests,  and  lower  clergy. 

After  the  death  of  Charlemagne,  Louis  le  Debonnaire,  his 
son,  became  his  successor  as  emperor,  Germany  having  been 
added  to  the  dominions  of  France.  He  was  both  weak  and 
superstitious,  and  was  easily  subjected  to  the  will  of  the 
pope.  He  sent  his  son  Lothaire  to  Rome  to  be  consecrated 
by  the  pope,  who,  when  he  reached  there,  was  both  sur- 
prised and  shocked  at  the  general  depravity  of  morals 
which  prevailed.  He  called  the  attention  of  Pope  Pascal 
to  it,  and  obtained  from  him  a  promise  of  reform  ;  but  so 
soon  as  Lothaire  had  left  Rome,  the  pope  caused  two  ven- 
erable priests  to  be  arrested,  charged  them  with  having  been 
informers,  had  their  eyes  put  out,  and  their  tongues  dragged 
out,  in  his  own  presence,  as  punishment  for  their  desire  to 
reform  the  morals  of  the  pope  and  clergy  !(^)  The  Emper- 
or Louis  became  indignant  when  he  heard  of  this,  and  sent 
embassadors  to  Rome  to  investigate  the  facts.  Before  these 
Pope  Pascal  solemnly  swore  he  had  nothing  to  do  with  it ! 
They  then  demanded  the  delivery  of  the  murderers,  but  this 
the  pope  refused,  because  they  "  were  of  the  family  of  St. 
Peter,  and  that  it  was  his  duty  to  protect  them  against  all 
the  sovereigns  of  the  world  !"(") 

That  factions  should  have  grown  up  under  such  a  pope  as 
this  is  not  at  all  wonderful.     They  were  excited  to  such  a 

O  Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  214.  (")  Ibid. 


TWO  POPES  AT  THE  SAME  TIME.  363 

degree  that  at  his  death  two  popes  were  elected  —  one  by 
the  nobles  and  clergy,  and  the  other  by  the  people  of  Rome. 
The  latter  benig  the  strongest,  succeeded  in  placing  Euge- 
nius  II.  upon  the  pontifical  throne.  Being  a  Roman,  and 
the  representative  of  the  people,  he  was  disposed  to  suppress 
the  general  immorality  which  prevailed  among  the  clergy, 
and  for  this  purpose  sought  the  aid  of  the  Emperor  Louis 
to  put  down  the  opposing  faction.  Louis  again  sent  Lo- 
thaire  to  Rome,  accompanied  by  the  venerable  Abbot  of  St. 
Denis,  in  France,  to  ascertain  the  true  condition  of  afiairs. 
When  he  reached  there,  he  heard  the  complaints  of  the  peo- 
ple, who  represented  to  him  that  they  had  been  stripped  of 
their  wealth  by  former  popes,  and  greatly  oppressed  by  their 
tyranny.  Lothaire,  indignant  at  these  abuses  and  outrages, 
commanded  the  pope  to  restore  to  the  citizens  their  proper- 
ty which  had  been  unjustly  confiscated,  and  endeavored  to 
provide  against  the  repetition  of  these  wrongs  by  the  pro- 
mulgation of  a  decree  for  securing  to  the  people  a  voice  in 
the  government  of  their  own  affairs.  This  constitution  is 
important,  as  showing  what  might  have  been  done  for  the 
cause  of  religion  and  reform,  under  an  honest  and  unambi- 
tious pope,  if  Eugenius  II.  had  lived  long  enough  to  provide 
for  the  faithful  execution  of  its  provisions.  Among  other 
things,  it  required  that  "equitable  justice"  should  be  ren- 
dered to  the  people ;  that  "  the  exercise  of  the  right  of  elec- 
tion of  the  chiefs  of  the  Church  "  should  not  be  impeded ; 
that  the  emperor  should  be  annually  informed  "  in  what 
manner  justice  has  been  rendered  to  the  citizens,"  and  how 
the  constitution  was  observed ;  that  the  people  of  Rome 
should  be  asked  "  under  what  law  they  wished  to  live,  in 
order  that  they  may  be  judged  according  to  the  law  which 
they  shall  have  adopted ;"  and  that  all  the  dignitaries  of 
the  State  should  take  an  oath  of  fidelity  to  the  emperor, 
which  should  be  of  superior  obligation  to  their  promise  of 
fidelity  to  the  Holy  See.Q 

This  liberal  constitution  restored  tranquillity  among  the 
Roman  people,  which  was  greatly  promoted  by  the  proceed- 
ings of  a  council  called  by  Pope  Eugenius  II.,  and  the  en- 

(')  Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  215. 


364  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

actraent  by  it  of  decrees  looking  to  the  reform  of  the  clergy. 
But  Eugenius  died,  after  a  pontificate  of  only  three  years, 
before  any  reformatory  results  were  secured;  leaving  the 
clergy  of  Rome  in  a  state  of  utter  and  debasing  ignorance. 
They  only  knew  how  to  follow  the  prescribed  rules,  to  ex- 
plain the  Pater  and  the  Credo,  and  to  exact  contributions 
from  the  people.  Many  of  the  inferior  clergy  could  not  dis- 
tinguish the  names  of  angels  from  those  of  devils,  and,  says 
Cormenin:  "They  believed  that  God  was  corporeal;  they 
knew  neither  the  creed  of  the  apostles,  nor  that  of  the  mass, 
nor  that  of  St.  Athanasius,  nor  even  the  Lord's  Prayer."(®) 

Valentine,  the  successor  of  Eugenius  II.,  would  have  done 
much  to  promote  reform  if  he  had  lived ;  but  it  so  happen- 
ed that  in  those  days  the  lives  of  such  popes  were  of  short 
duration.  His  pontificate  lasted  only  five  weeks.  Upon  his 
death  Gregory  IV.,  who  was  but  a  deacon,  became  pope. 
Though  consecrated  with  the  consent  of  the  emperor,  the 
latter  wrote  him,  threatening  to  depose  him  if  his  conduct 
was  not  exemplary.  At  this  Gregory  became  offended,  and 
vowed  that  he  would  have  revenge.  This  passion  became 
more  violent  when,  soon  afterward,  Louis  compelled  him  to 
restore  some  property  to  the  monastery  of  St.  Mary,  which 
he  had  illegally  seized.  The  first  step  incited  by  his  pon- 
tifical vengeance  was  to  stir  up  Lothaire  to  revolt  against 
his  father,  under  the  promise  that  for  this  act  of  treason  he 
should  have  the  protection  of  the  Church.  History  has  re- 
corded but  few  acts  of  perfidy  so  base  as  this.  But  it  was 
a  step  in  the  road  toward  temporal  and  imperial  power,  and 
Pope  Gregory  IV.  had  no  such  conscientious  scruples  as 
forbade  him  to  take  it.  He  went  to  France  to  make  his 
success  more  sure ;  and  the  French  "  Chronicle  of  St.  Den- 
is" says,  that  "the  demons  of  hell  animated  all  the  children 
of  Louis,  and  that  Satan  himself  came  in  the  person  of  the 
Bishop  of  Rome^  under  the  charitable  pretext  as  if  he  wish- 
ed to  establish  peace  between  the  emperor  and  his  children, 
but  in  reality  to  excommunicate  the  monarch  and  the  bish- 
ops who  opposed  the  execrable  wishes  of  these  unnatural 
children.''^) 

(^)  Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  217.  O  ^^»^-j  ^'ol-  i-j  P-  219. 


THE  POPE  PLOTS  REBELLION  IN  FRANCE.  365 

The  prelates  of  France,  becoming  indignant  at  the  course 
of  the  pope,  wrote  him  that  if  he  persisted  further  in  inter- 
fering with  the  temporal  affairs  of  France,  in  violation  of 
his  oath  of  fidelity  to  the  emperor,  they  would  resist  his  ec- 
clesiastical authority ;  and  if  he  undertook  to  excommunicate 
them,  they  would  defy  him.  Alarmed  at  this,  he  resolved 
upon  leaving  France.  But  before  he  carried  this  resolution 
into  effect,  his  pride  was  excited  by  some  monks  who  pre- 
tended to  lay  before  him  some  declarations  of  the  fathers 
and  portions  of  the  decrees  of  the  Italian  councils,  which 
"declared  him  to  be  the  supreme  judge  of  all  Christians." 
Stimulated  by  these  means,  he  again  resolved  to  consum- 
mate his  own  and  the  treason  of  Lothaire.  Then,  pretend- 
ing to  desire  a  reconciliation  between  him  and  his  father,  he 
visited  the  emperor's  camp,  where  he  was  received  with  kind- 
ness. While  protesting  to  the  emperor  his  "  unutterable  de- 
votion," he  was  engaged  in  producing  defection  among  his 
troops,  "  by  presents,  promises,  or  threats."  Thus  he  suc- 
ceeded in  drawing  away  the  troops  from  the  emperor,  and, 
after  the  pope  left  the  camp,  they  went  over  to  Lothaire, 
who  made  Louis  prisoner,  deprived  him  of  his  crown  and 
royal  robes,  and  made  himself  Emperor  of  the  West,  and 
King  of  France — all  of  which  was  directed  and  consecrated 
by  this  base  and  perfidious  pope,  whose  conscience  was  not 
bound  by  either  vow,  pledge,  or  oath,  however  solemn.  He 
was,  nevertheless,  infallible! 

The  people  of  France  became  excited  to  the  highest  de- 
gree by  these  movements.  They  refused  to  recognize  Lo- 
thaire, drove  him  from  the  throne,  and  re-established  Louis 
in  power.  Now  it  came  his  turn  to  be  revenged  upon  the 
pope.  For  this  purpose,  he  sent  embassadors  to  Rome  to 
investigate  his  conduct;  but,  when  they  reached  there, 
Gregory  solemnly  swore  that  he  had  rendered  no  assistance 
to  Lothaire,  that  all  his  intentions  were  pure  and  innocent, 
and  that  he  was  devoted  to  Louis,  whom  he  was  ready  to 
assist  in  punishing  Lothaire,  and  his  other  children,  for  their 
treason  !  Louis,  who  was  not  only  a  weak  prince,  but  kind- 
hearted  and  excessively  superstitious,  forgave  him  and  his 
children  also,  hoping  to  restore  concord  and  quiet.  But  Lo- 
thaire, now  realizing  that  the  false-hearted  pope  had  been 


366  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

making  a  tool  of  him  to  advance  his  own  ambition,  became 
furious  at  his  new  treachery,  and  ordered  that  both  he  and 
his  priests  should  be  treated  with  severity  on  account  of 
it.  This  was  also  arrested  by  Louis,  whose  magnanimous 
conduct  stands  in  striking  contrast  to  that  of  this  "exe- 
crable pontiif,  who  used  religion  as  a  plea  to  arm  children 
against  their  father,"  and  of  whom  a  Roman  Catholic  pen 
has  recorded  that  he  was  a  "  cowardly,  knavish,  perfid- 
ious, and  sacrilegious  priest,  destitute  of  principles  and 
faith.'^'") 

The  death  of  Louis  led  to  a  violent  contest  between  his 
children ;  and  to  such  disturbance  throughout  France  as 
rendered  the  government  and  all  public  affairs  insecure. 
Pope  Sergius,  successor  to  Gregory  IV.,  had  also  an  occasion 
to  show  himself  the  patron  of  treason  growing  out  of  these 
disorders,  and  to  contribute  by  that  means  his  example  to 
the  many  others  which,  by  the  force  of  precedent,  go  to 
make  up  the  law  of  the  papacy.  Nomenoe,  a  duke  of  Brit- 
tany, revolted  against  the  King  of  Brittany,  Charles  the 
Bald,  but  was  opposed  by  the  bishops  of  the  province.  Lo- 
thaire,  who  favored  the  duke,  sent  large  presents  to  the 
pope,  and  bribed  him  also  to  take  his  side.  He,  accordingly, 
issued  his  papal  decree  commanding  the  bishops  to  recog- 
nize Nomenoe  as  king,  under  pain  of  deposition  and  anathe- 
ma, thus  invoking,  as  many  other  popes  have  done,  both  be- 
fore and  since,  the  aid  of  religion  to  accomplish  worldly  and 
ambitious  ends.  And  while  these  examples  present  us  with 
some  of  the  instructive  lessons  taught  by  history,  they  also 
exhibit  the  manner  in  which  the  papal  power  grew,  in  a  few 
centuries  more,  into  enormous  proportions. 

The  invasion  of  Italy  by  the  Saracens  put  a  stop,  for  a 
w^hile,  to  the  growth  of  the  temporal  power;  but  upon  their 
defeat,  under  the  pontificate  of  Leo  IV.,  the  affairs  of  the 
Church  at  Rome  were  thrown  into  such  confusion  that  the 
few  years  following  his  death  have  never  since  ceased  to  be 
the  cause  of  angry  and  acrimonious  controversy.  It  is  dur- 
ing these  years  when  it  is  alleged  that  the  Popess  Joan  oc- 
cupied the  pontifical  chair,  a  matter  not  proper  for  discus- 

('")  Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  220. 


PETER-PENCE  IN  ENGLAND.  367 

sion  bere.(^*)  About  this  time  an  event  occurred  which  con- 
tributed greatly  to  the  increase  of  papal  ambition.  Ethel- 
wolf,  King  of  England,  was  a  religious  devotee — ardently  en- 
listed in  the  papal  cause.  He  visited  Rome  and  had  an  in- 
terview with  the  pope,  which  resulted  in  his  agreeing  that 
the  pope  might  levy  Peter-pence  all  over  his  dominions,  and 
in  his  agreeing  to  pay  to  him  yearly  large  sums  of  money. 
Some  historians  allege  that  he  made  the  kingdom  of  Great 
Britain  tributary  to  the  Holy  See ;  but  this,  though  not  posi- 
tively denied,  is  not  stated  by  others.  (^')  However  the  fact 
may  be,  it  is  certain  that  the  interview  between  King  Ethel- 
wolf  and  the  pope  did  give  greater  impunity  to  those  popes 
who  were  resolved  upon  interfering  in  the  affairs  of  the  na- 
tions. It  was  soon  after  this  that  the  Eastern  Christians, 
despairing  of  any  compromise  of  their  disagreements  with 
Rome,  resolved  upon  making  their  final  separation  from 
those  of  the  West.  And  Pope  Nicholas  I.,  thus  rid  of  this 
perplexing  controversy,  was  furnished  with  more  leisure  to 
increase  his  temporal  authority.  Surrounded  by  kings  who 
were  ready,  as  the  German  emperor  did,  to  kiss  his  feet,  and 

(")  This  question  is  not  without  difficulty.  Cormenin  maintains  that 
Joan  was  popess  from  a.b.  853,  after  the  death  of  Leo  IV.,  to  855,  when 
the  pontificate  of  Benedict  III.  commenced, — Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  225. 
But  Butler,  in  his  "Lives  of«the  Saints,"  denies  the  whole  story,  and  calls 
it  "a  most  notorious  forgery."  —  Butler,  July  17th,  article  St.  Leo  IV. 
In  this  all  the  defenders  of  the  papacy  are  agreed.  In  the  chronological 
table  of  the  popes  published  by  the  Church,  they  make  Leo  IV.  pope  up 
to  A.D.  855,  and  Benedict  III.  his  successor.  But  did  he  die  in  853,  as 
Cormenin  asserts,  or  live  until  855,  as  the  papists  assert  ?  If  he  did,  then 
there  was  either  a  Popess  Joan,  or  an  interregnum  of  more  than  two  years. 
If  he  did  not,  but  lived  till  855,  then  there  was  neither  the  one  nor  the  other. 
It  is  a  question  which  may  excite  curiosity,  but  does  not  bear,  in  any  form, 
upon  that  of  the  temporal  power  of  the  popes.  Although  Dr.  DoUinger 
classes  it  along  with  the  fables  and  myths  of  the  Middle  Ages,  yet  he  says 
that  there  was  no  doubt,  in  the  fifteenth  century,  about  the  existence  of  a 
female  pope.  According  to  him,  her  bust  was  placed  in  the  cathedral  at 
Sienna  along  with  the  busts  of  the  other  popes ;  and  it  was  not  till  the  sev- 
enteenth century  that  Pope  Clement  VIIL  caused  Joan  to  be  "  metamor- 
phosed into  Pope  Zacharias."  John  Huss,  at  the  Council  of  Constance,  re- 
ferred to  the  Popess  Joan,  and  was  not  contradicted. — Fables  respecting  the 
Popes  of  the  Middle  Ages,  by  Dollinger,  pp.  30,  31. 

('^)  Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  233;  "Hist,  of  Eng.,"by  Rapin,  vol.  i.,  p.  309; 
"  Hist,  of  Eng."  by  Lingard,  vol.  i.,  p.  95. 


UNIVERSITY  ) 


368  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

to  put  themselves  under  his  protection,  in  order  to  keep  upon 
their  thrones,  he  resolved  upon  asserting,  as  one  of  the  pre- 
rogatives of  Peter,  the  right  to  rule  over  the  world.  In  re- 
plying to  a  letter  from  the  bishops  of  Lorraine,  in  which 
they  declared  their  submission  to  him,  he  employed  this  ex- 
traordinary language : 

"  You  affirm  that  you  are  submissive  to  your  sovereign, 
in  order  to  obey  the  words  of  the  apostle  Peter,  who  said, 
'Be  subject  to  the  prince,  because  he  is  above  all  mortals 
in  this  world.'  But  you  appear  to  forget  that  we,  as  the 
vicar  of  Christ,  Aaue  the  right  to  judge  all  mien:  thus,  be- 
fore obeying  kings,  you  owe  obedience  to  us ;  and  if  we  de- 
clare a  monarch  guilty,  you  should  reject  him  from  your 
communion  until  we  pardon  him. 

"  We  alone  have  the  power  to  bind  and  to  loose,  to  ab- 
solve Nero  and  to  condemn  him  ;  and  Christians  can  not, 
under  penalty  of  excommunication,  execute  other  judgment 
than  ours,  which  alone  is  infallible.  People  are  not  the 
judges  of  their  princes ;  they  should  obey  without  mur- 
muring the  most  iniquitous  orders ;  they  should  bow  their 
foreheads  under  the  chastisements  which  it  pleases  kings  to 
inflict  on  them ;  for  a  sovereign  can  violate  the  fundament- 
al laws  of  the  State,  and  seize  upon  the  wealth  of  the  cit- 
izen, by  imposts  or  by  confiscations;  he  can  even  dispose 
of  their  lives,  without  any  of  his  subjects  having  the  right 
to  address  to  him  simple  remonstrances.  But  if  we  declare 
a  king  heretical  and  sacrilegious,  if  we  drive  him  from  the 
Church,  clergy  and  laity,  whatever  their  \2,v^^  are  freed  from 
their  oaths  of  fidelity^  and  may  revolt  against  his  power.'''' {^^) 

The  same  pope  wrote  to  Charles  the  Bald,  to  incite  him 
against  the  King  of  Lorraine,  saying,  "  We  order  you,  in 
the  name  of  religion,  to  invade  his  states,  burn  his  cities, 
and  massacre  his  people,  whom  we  render  responsible  for 
the  resistance  of  their  bad  prince."(^*) 

He  thus  addressed  an  envoy  from  Constantinople :  "  Know, 
prince,  that  the  vicars  of  Christ  are  above  the  judgment  of 
mortals;  and  that  the  most  powerful  sovereigns  have  no 
right  to  punish  the  crimes  of  popes,  how  enormous  soever 

(")  Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  242.  ('')  Ibid.,  p.  243. 


ENORMOUS  PRETENSIONS  OF  NICHOLAS  I.  369 

they  may  be ;  for  no  matter  how  scandalous  or  crimi- 
nal may  be  the  debaucheries  of  the  pontiffs,  you  should  obey 
them,  for  they  are  seated  on  the  chair  of  St.  Peter."(^^) 

Again :  "  Fear,  then,  our  wrath  and  the  thunders  of  our 
vengeance ;  for  Jesus  Christ  has  appointed  us  with  his  own 
mouth  absolute  judges  of  all  menj  and  kings  themselves  are 
submitted  to  our  authority."(^^) 

When  the  King  of  Bulgaria  became  a  convert  to  Christi- 
anity, he  persecuted  those  of  his  subjects  who  refused  to  fol- 
low his  example  ;  and  Pope  Nicholas  I.  thus  wrote  him : 

"I  glorify  you  for  having  maintained  your  authority  by 
putting  to  death  those  wandering  sheep  who  refuse  to  enter 
the  fold  ;  and  you  not  only  have  not  sinned  by  showing  a 
holy  rigor,  but  I  even  congratulate  you  upon  having  open- 
ed the  kingdom  of  heaven  to  the  people  submitted  to  your 
rule.  A  king  need  not  fear  to  command  massacres^  when 
these  will  retain  his  subjects  in  obedience,  or  cause  them  to 
submit  to  the  faith  of  Christ ;  and  God  will  reward  him  in 
this  world,  and  in  eternal  life,  for  these  murders."('') 

It  should  surprise  no  one  to  know  that  this  pope  so  bold- 
ly asserted  his  infallibility  as  to  claim  equality  with  God. 
According  to  Gratian,  he  issued  a  pontifical  decree,  wherein 
he  said : 

"It  is  evident  that  the  popes  can  neither  be  bound  nor 
unbound  by  any  earthly  power,  nor  even  by  that  of  the 
apostle,  if  he  should  return  upon  the  earth ;  since  Constan- 
tine  the  Great  has  recognized  that  the  pontiffs  held  the  place 
of  God  upon  earthy  the  divinity  not  being  able  to  be  judged 
by  any  living  man.  We  are,  then,  infallible,  and  v^hatever 
may  he  our  acts,  we  are  not  accountable  for  them  but  to  our- 
selves.^'' ('^) 

The  Roman  Catholic  Church  canonizes  and  places  in  her 
calendar  of  saints  those  whose  devotion  and  piety  she  con- 
siders worthy  of  imitation.  In  this  list  she  has  placed  sev- 
enty-six of  her  popes;  and  pointing  out  these  saints  to  her 
children,  she  says  to  them  that  their  lives  exhibit  "the  most 
perfect  maxims  of  the  Gospel  reduced  to  practice,"  point  out 
"the  true  path,"  and  lead,  "as  it  were,  by  the  hand  into  it, 

HCoimenin.        ('«) //nU,  p.  244.         C)  Ibid.         O /6id,  p.  248. 

24 


370  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

sweetly  inviting  and  encouraging  ns  to  walk  cheerfully  in 
the  steps  of  those  that  are  gone  before  us."  They  are  call- 
ed "  the  greatest  personages  who  have  ever  adorned  the 
world,  the  brightest  ornaments  of  the  Church  militant,  and 
the  shining  stars  and  suns  of  the  triumphant,  our  future 
companions  in  eternal  glory."  And  "  their  penitential  lives 
and  holy  maxims"  are  commended  to  the  faithful,  as  fur- 
nishing "the  sublime  lessons  of  practical  virtue."(^'')  Now, 
when  we  consider  that  this  pope,  Nicholas  I.,  has  been  made 
a  saintjC*")  and  that  what  he  did  and  said  is  held  in  the 
most  sacred  remembrance,  we  can  not  fail  to  realize  the  im- 
portance of  scrutinizing  closely  the  language  employed  by 
him  in  the  foregoing  decrees  and  encyclicals,  and  of  know- 
ing also  their  effect  upon  the  acquisition  of  temporal  pow- 
er, and  the  ultimate  consequences  to  which  they  led.  Why 
was  he  made  a  saint  if  his  pontificate  was  not  designed  as 
a  model  for  imitation  ?  Why  should  he  be  imitated,  if  his 
principles  and  policy  are  not  to  be  made  the  principles  and 
policy  of  all  time  ?  He  was  infallible,  and  could  not  err ! 
He  was  in  "  the  place  of  God  upon  earth  !"  Therefore,  the 
Church  must  be  as  obedient  to  him  to-day  as  it  was  during 
his  pontificate  !  The  Encyclical  and  Syllabus  of  Pope  Pius 
IX.  sufiiciently  show  that  he  so  understands  it. 

Between  the  close  of  the  pontificate  of  Nicholas  I.  and  the 
beginning  of  the  tenth  century,  eight  popes  occupied  the 
chair  of  Peter,  as  it  is  called,  and  were  all  faithful  to  the 
policy  of  Nicholas,  in  so  far  as  they  had  the  ability  to  be  so. 
One  of  these,  Boniface  VI.,  called  by  Baronius  "an  infamous 
wretch,"  was  poisoned  by  the  agency  of  the  Bishop  of  Ana- 
guia,  who  became  his  successor,  under  the  name  of  Stephen 
VII. (^')  This  infallible  pope  caused  the  body  of  his  infalli- 
ble predecessor,  Formosus,  who  had  been  pope  from  the 
year  891  to  896,  to  be  exhumed  from  its  burial-place,  "to 
punish  him  for  having  usurped  the  supreme  dignity  to  his 
detriment."  He  assembled  a  council  of  bishops,  had  the 
dead  body  "  placed  in  the  pontifical  seat,  the  tiara  on  its 


O  "  Lives  of  the  Saints,"  by  Butler,  vol.  i.,  preface,  p.  4G. 
O  "  Catholic  Family  Almanac,"  1870,  p.  47. 
CO  Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  273. 


A  LIVE  POPE  PUNISHING  A  DEAD  ONE.  371 

head,  the  pastoral  baton  in  its  hand,  and  clothed  with  the 
sacerdotal  ornaments."  He  appointed  an  advocate  to  de- 
fend him,  and  propounded  to  the  dead  Fornjosus  questions, 
which  the  advocate  so  answered  as  to  amount  to  a  confes- 
sion of  guilt  by  Formosus  !  Whereupon  Pope  Stephen  VII. 
impiously  pronounced  sentence  of  excommunication  and  dep- 
osition against  the  insensible  victim  of  his  pontifical  venge- 
ance, struck  him  a  blow  which  prostrated  the  4ead  body 
at  his  feet,  stripped  off  its  pontifical  robes  with  his  own 
hands,  cut  off  three  of  its  fingers,  ordered  the  head  to  be  cut 
off,  and  the  body  to  be  thrown  into  the  Tiber !(")  All  tliis 
was  done  in  the  name  of  religion,  under  the  criminal  pre- 
tense of  obedience  to  the  Gospel  of  Christ,  which  every- 
where places  love,  charity,  and  benevolence  as  among  the 
highest  cardinal  virtues.  It  is  no  wonder,  then,  that  Baro- 
nius,  the  great  Roman  Catholic  annalist,  who  defended  the 
papacy  in  every  thing  in  which  it  was  possible  to  do  so, 
spoke  thus  of  the  condition  of  the  Church  at  this  time : 

"  Never  had  divisions,  civil  wars,  the  persecution  of  pa- 
gans, heretics,  and  schismatics  caused  it  to  suffer  so  much 
as  the  monsters  who  installed  themselves  on  the  throne  of 
Christ  by  simony  and  murders.  The  Roman  Church  was 
transformed  into  a  shameless  courtesan,  covered  with  silks 
and  precious  stones,  which  publicly  prostituted  itself  for 
gold ;  the  palace  of  the  Latigran  was  become  a  disgraceful 
tavern,  in  which  ecclesiastics  of  all  nations  disputed  with 
harlots  the  price  of  infamy. 

"  Never  did  priests,  and  especially  popes^  commit  so  many 
adulteries,  rapes,  incests,  robberies,  and  murders ;  and  never 
was  the  ignorance  of  the  clergy  so  great  as  during  this  de- 
plorable period.  Christ  was  then  assuredly  sleeping  a  pro- 
found sleep  in  the  bottom  of  his  vessel,  while  the  winds 
buffeted  it  on  all  sides,  and  covered  it  with  the  waves  of  the 
sea.  And,  what  was  more  unfortunate  still,  the  disciples 
of  the  Lord  slept  more  profoundly  than  he,  and  could  not 
awaken  him  either  by  their  cries  or  their  clamors.  Thus  the 
tempest  of  abomination  fastened  itself  on  the  Church,  and 
offered  to  the  inspection  of  men  the  most  horrid  spectacle  ! 

O  Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  274. 


372  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

The  canons  of  councils,  the  creed  of  the  apostles,  the  faith  of 
Nice,  the  old  traditions,  the  sacred  rites,  were  buried  in  the 
abyss  of  oblivion,  and  the  most  unbridled  dissoluteness,  fero- 
cious despotism,  and  insatiable  ambition  usurped  their  place. 
Who  could  call  legitimate  pontiffs  the  intruders  who  seated 
themselves  on  the  chair  of  the  apostles,  and  what  must  have 
been  the  cardinals  selected  by  such  monsters  ?"(") 

Such  times  as  these  were  adapted  to  the  practice  of  any 
kind  of  imposture  and  fraud  which  the  popes  and  clergy 
considered  necessary  to  strengthen  the  authority  of  the  pa- 
pacy. As  an  effective  means  of  establishing  a  code  of  can- 
on laws  for  the  government  of  the  Church,  one  Dionysius 
had  previously  compiled  a  body  of  decrees  made  by  former 
popes.  These  went  back  no  further  than  the  pontificate  of 
Siricius,  in  the  year  385  ;(")  and  had  reference  to  matters  of 
faith  and  the  forms  of  church  government.  They  gave  no 
special  impunity  to  crime,  and  were,  in  no  very  great  degree, 
inconsistent  with  the  principles  prevailing  in  the  apostolic 
times,  except  in  so  far  as  they  recognized  such  pagan  cus- 
toms as  were  calculated  to  give  popularity  to  the  public 
worship  of  Rome.  But  they  were  unsuited  to  these  times, 
in  that  they  did  not  furnish  a  sufficient  shelter  for  the  cor- 
ruption and  imperialism  of  the  popes,  and  did  not  suflicient- 
ly  lay  the  foundation  for  their  claim  of  dominion  over  the 
world.  Something  more  was  necessary;  and  the  means  of 
s«upplying  this  were  not  wanting.  It  consisted  of  the  False 
Decretals^  which  are  now  universally  considered  to  have 
been  bold  and  unblushing  forgeries.  Yet,  forgeries  as  they 
were,  they  constitute  the  corner-stone  of  that  enormous  sys- 
tem of  wrong  and  usurpation  which  has  since  been  built  up 
by  the  papacy,  to  revive  which  Pope  Pius  IX.  has  now  put 
forth  his  Encyclical  and  Syllabus,  and  numerous  encyclical 
letters.  These  forgeries  are  attributed  to  one  Isadore  Mer- 
cator,  of  Seville,  in  Spain ;  but  their  real  authorship  is  not 
entirely  free  from  doubt.  It  is  known,  however,  that  they 
were  carried  from  Spain  to  Rome  by  the  Bishop  of  Mayence 
about  the  times  we  have  been  reviewing;  times  which,  as 

O  Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  275. 

C*)  Ibid.,\o\.  i.,  p.  24  ;  Milman's  "  Latin  Christianity,"  vol.  iii.,  p.  191. 


FSEUDO-ISIDORIAN  DECRETALS.  373 

there  is  no  difficulty  in  seeing,  were  admirably  adapted  to 
such  imposture.  Dr.  Dorner  thinks  that  recent  investiga- 
tions have  shown  that  they  originated  between  the  years 
847  and  853,  which  period  is  covered  by  the  pontificate  of 
Leo  IV.  and  the  time  assigned  to  the  alleged  Popess  Joan;(^^) 
so  short  a  time  before  the  pontificate  of  Nicholas  I.  as  to 
show  that  they  constituted  the  authority  upon  which  he 
based  his  extraordinary  and  impious  assumptions  of  au- 
thority. 

These  pseudo-Isidorian  decrees  were  designed  as  a  com- 
pilation of  the  canons  established  as  far  back  as  the  pon- 
tificate of  Clement  I.,  in  the  year  91,  so  as  to  fill  up  the 
gap  between  him  and  Siricius,  who  became  pope  in  the  year 
385.  During  this  period  there  were  thirty-three  popes,  all 
of  whom,  except  one,  Liberius,  have  been  made  saints.  We 
shall  better  understand  the  purpose  and  character  of  these 
decretals  by  going  back  to  the  times  of  their  alleged  origin. 

The  second  century  closed  with  the  pontificate  of  Pope 
Victor  I.,  who  distinguished  himself  by  having,  with  the  cel- 
ebrated Tertullian,  adopted  the  heresy  of  the  Montanists,(^*') 
and  inaugurated  the  controversy  in  relation  to  the  festival 
of  Easter.  The  Asiatic  Christians,  following  the  custom  es- 
tablished by  the  evangelists  St.  John  and  St.  Philip,  cele- 
brated this  festival,  like  the  Jews,  on  the  fortieth  day  after 
the  first  new  moon  of  each  year ;  and  when  Polycarp,  Bish- 
op of  Smyrna  and  a  disciple  of  St.  John,  visited  Rome  about 
the  year  167-'68,  and  found  that  it  was  the  custom  there  to 
wait  until  the  Sunday  after  the  fortieth  day,  he  declined  to 
adopt  it,  and  it  was  agreed  between  him  and  Anicetus,  who 
was  then  pope,  that  each  Church,  the  Eastern  and  Western, 
should  follow  its  own  custom.  Thus,  up  to  this  time,  there 
was  perfect  equality  between  the  Greek  and  Latin  church- 
es, each  retaining  its  own  independence  of  the  other.  But 
when  Victor  L  became  pope,  he  was  not  disposed  to  let  the 
affairs  of  the  churches  remain  in  this  quiet  and  pacific  con- 
dition—  so  admirably  calculated  to  advance  the  cause  and 
progress  of  Christianity.      He  was  the  first  pope  who  em- 


O  "  History  of  Protestant  Theology,  "by  Domer,  vol.  i.,  p.  30. 
C^")  Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  31. 


374  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

ployed  the  thunders  of  excommunication,  which  have  since 
been  used  with  such  terrible  effect  upon  both  nations  and 
individuals.  He  excommunicated  Theophilus  for  asserting 
that  Christ  was  a  mere  human,  and  Praxeus  for  his  attempt 
to  abolish  the  distinction  between  the  three  persons  in  the 
Trinity.  For  the  latter  purpose,  he  assembled  at  Rome  a 
council — the  first  ever  convened  by  a  pope  of  his  own  au- 
thority— and  this  exercise  of  power  caused  him  to  conceive 
the  idea  of  the  superiority  of  the  Church  of  Rome  over  all 
the  other  churches.  And  hence,  in  order  to  establish  this 
superiority,  he  resolved  upon  forcing  the  Eastern  Christians 
to  adopt  the  custom  of  Rome  in  reference  to  Easter ;  and 
thus  inaugurated  a  controversy  which  gave  rise  to  subse- 
quent usurpations,  and,  in  the  end,  to  the  final  separation 
of  the  Greek  and  Latin  Christians.  This  effort  to  make  a 
matter  of  so  small  importance  a  cause  of  quarrel  was,  at 
its  inception,  resisted  by  many  of  the  bishops;  and  Irenae- 
us.  Bishop  of  Lyons,  censured  the  pope  for  it,  in  the  name 
of  the  Church  in  France  —  then  Gaul.  He  yielded  to  the 
pressure  of  these  opinions,  but  not  without  having  contrib- 
uted toward  laying  the  foundation  for  the  subsequent  claim 
of  supremacy.  His  immediate  successor,  Zephyrinus,  who 
became  pope  in  the  year  202,  has  also  been  accused  of  fa- 
voring the  Montanists ;  but  this  accusation  is  probably  un- 
just, as,  imitating  Victor,  he  excommunicated  them,  includ- 
ing Tertullian.  Tertullian  was  so  much  esteemed  for  his  pi- 
ety, and  on  account  of  the  services  he  had  rendered  Chris- 
tianity in  his  "Apology  "  and  other  works,  especially  that 
against  the  heresy  of  Marcion,  that  his  excommunication 
excited  general  indignation.  And,  in  order  to  escape  the 
consequences  of  this  act.  Pope  Zephyrinus  was  driven  to  as- 
sert the  claim  of  superiority  made  by  Victor,  hoping  there- 
by to  pacify  the  Western  priesthood  by  the  prospect  of  their 
sharing  with  him  the  power  and  authority  he  hoped  to  se- 
cure by  a  triumph  over  the  Eastern  Christians.  Under 
these  two  pontificates,  therefore  —  from  the  year  194  to  221 
—  ambition  first  began  to  creep  into  the  Church  at  Rome, 
and  to  stimulate  its  popes  to  substitute  motives  of  worldly 
grandeur  and  wealth  for  that  simplicity  which  had  distin- 
guished the  humble  fishermen  who  had  followed  the  Saviour 


POPES  CLEMENT  I.  AND  ANACLETUS.  3^5 

during  his  earthly  but  divine  ministrations.  And  thus  we 
see  the  reason  why  these  False  Decretals  are  carried  back 
to  the  times  previous  to  Pope  Siricius,  in  order  to  show  that 
these  popes,  who  were  the  alleged  authors  of  them,  predica- 
ted their  claim  of  superiority  upon  the  doctrines  they  con- 
tained, and  designed  them  as  the  means  of  elevating  the 
popes  into  earthly  monarchs,  and  the  whole  priesthood  into 
a  powerful  and  irresponsible  hierarchy.  The  efforts  now 
making  to  revive  and  re-establish  them  in  this  country 
make  it  important  that  the  people  should  understand  what 
they  contain,  so  as  to  know  what  is  meant  by  the  temporal 
power  of  the  pope,  and  what  is  proposed  in  the  place  of 
our  Protestant  institutions.  They  are,  also,  an  additional 
key  for  the  interpretation  of  the  Encyclical  and  Syllabus. 

In  the  first  epistle  attributed  to  Pope  Clement  I.  he  is 
made  to  represent  himself  as  having  immediately  succeed- 
ed the  apostle  Peter  in  the  pontifical  chair,  whereas  it  is 
well  understood,  and  now  conceded,  that  Linus  and  Ana- 
cletus  were  both  bishops  of  Rome  before  Clement.  But  it 
needed  authority  of  this  kind  to  establish  the  assumption 
that  Peter  was  the  first  pope,  and  this  forgery  answered 
the  purpose.  Besides,  it  recognized  the  book  called  "  The 
Itinerary,  or  Book  of  the  Voyages  of  St.  Peter,"  which  is,  un- 
doubtedly, apocryphal.  There  are  four  other  epistles  also 
attributed  to  Clement,  all  of  which  are  manifest  forgeries. 
In  one  he  is  made  to  speak  of  princes  and  other  ecclesias- 
tical officers  of  the  Church,  when,  in  the  time  of  Clement, 
none  such  were  known.  In  another  he  is  represented  as 
addressing  an  epistle  to  St.  James,  wherein  he  calls  himself 
the  successor  of  St.  Peter,  when  James  died  before  Peter. 
And  Clement  is  made  to  approve  the  doctrines  of  the  Nico- 
laitans,  who  taught,  says  Du  Pin,  "  that  women  ought  to  be 
kept  in  common. "(") 

In  a  pretended  epistle  by  Pope  Anacletus,  he  is  repre- 
sented as  a  defender  of  Clement,  when  he  died  before  Clem- 
ent was  Bishop  of  Rome.  But  he  is  made  to  speak  of  hav- 
ing received  many  things  by  tradition,  in  order  to  substi- 

C)  For  a  thorough  exposition  of  all  these  forgeries  see  Du  Pin's  "Eecl. 
Hist.,"  vol.  i.,  p.  173. 


376  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

tute  tradition  for  fact  —  a  thing  which  it  was  impossible 
for  Anacletus  to  do,  because  he  lived  in  the  times  of  the 
apostles,  when  no  tradition  was  necessary.  The  special  ob- 
ject of  this  epistle,  however,  was  to  establish,  by  Anacletus, 
the  proposition  "  that  appeals  from  secular  judges  ought  to 
be  determined  before  bishops ;"  that  "  the  privileges  and 
laws  of  the  Church  ought  to  be  confirmed ;"  that  there 
should  be  "appeals  from  ecclesiastical  judgments  to  the 
Holy  See  ;"  that  there  were  "  primates  and  metropolitans  " 
in  the  Church :  whereas  it  is  well  known  that  none  of  these 
orders  existed,  and  none  of  these  things  were  ever  talked 
of  or  debated,  until  after  the  death  of  Anacletus. 

In  another  epistle  by  the  same  bishop,  it  is  said  that  he 
"  would  neither  have  bishops  to  be  accused  nor  judged  " — 
a  claim  of  immunity  still  persevered  in. 

The  epistles  attributed  to  Popes  Evaristus  and  Alexander 
I,  who  were  the  immediate  successors  of  Clement,  contain 
nothing  of  special  importance,  but  are  made  up  of  extracts 
from  authors  who  lived  long  after  their  time,  and  refer  to 
matters  which  did  not  occur  for  more  than  a  century  after 
they  were  dead. 

Pope  Sixtus  I.  is  made  to  call  himself  an  archbishop  —  a 
word  not  then  used — and  to  speak  of  "appeals  to  Rome," 
and  "the  grandeur  of  that  Church,"  and  of  the  requirement 
"that  all  bishops  wait  for  the  pope's  decision,  and  are  in- 
structed by  his  letters"  —  which,  says  Du  Pin,  are  "modes 
of  speaking  never  used  by  the  first  bishops  of  Rome." 

Pope  Telesphorus  is  made  to  say  "  that  the  laity  and  cler- 
gy could  not  accuse  one  another  in  judgment."  And  two 
letters  are  ascribed  to  Pope  Higinus,  of  no  special  import, 
but  condemned  by  their  containing  quotations  from  the 
popes  Leo  I.,  Martin  L,  and  Adrian  I.,  who  lived  long  after. 
There  are  also  three  letters  from  Pope  Pius  L,  which  are 
shown,  in  the  same  way,  to  be  spurious. 

Pope  Anicetus  speaks  of  archbishops,  primates,  and  patri- 
archs—  not  instituted  till  long  after — besides,  says  Du  Pin, 
"  many  other  things  of  the  same  nature."  There  are  also 
two  letters  from  Pope  Soter,  which  are  also  manifestly  spu- 
rious. 

An  epistle  by  Pope  Eleutherus  "  treats  of  ecclesiastical 


POPES  VICTOR  I.  AND  ZEPHYRINUS.  377 

judgments  in  favor  of  the  Court  of  Rome."  He  is  made  to 
insist  that  "  all  causes  relating  to  the  Church  ought  to  be 
determined  there,"  which,  says  Du  Pin,  "is  a  practice  con- 
trary to  all  antiquity."  This  epistle  is  shown  to  be  a  for- 
gery by  abundant  proofs.  It  copies  a  text  out  of  St.  John, 
and  attributes  it  to  St.  Paul.  It  also  contains  passages 
from  the  writings  of  Pope  Leo  I.  (a.d.  440),  Felix  III.  (a.d. 
526),  Adrian  I.  (a.d.  772),  from  councils  which  had  not  met, 
and  from  the  Theodosian  code,  when  Theodosius  was  not  em- 
peror until  nearly  two  hundred  years  after  the  death  of  this 
pope. 

In  an  epistle  by  Pope  Victor  I.  he  is  made  to  confer  upon 
himself  the  further  title  of  "Archbishop  of  the  Universal 
Churchil''  and  to  speak  of  "  appeals  to  Rome."  Its  falsity  is 
shown  by  the  fact  that  it  is  addressed  to  Theophilus  of  Al- 
exandria, who  did  not  live  till  nearly  two  hundred  years 
after.  There  is  also  another  letter  of  his,  directed  to  De- 
siderius.  Bishop  of  Vienna,  when  there  was  no  bishop  of 
that  name  in  Vienna  till  near  the  close  of  the  sixth  cent- 
ury."(") 

Pope  Zephyrinus  is  represented  as  addressing  an  encyc- 
lical epistle,  ex  cathedra^  to  the  bishops  of  Sicily,  wherein  he 
claims  "  final "  jurisdiction  in  all  cases  relating  to  the  trial 
of  bishops,  as  belonging  to  the  "  seat  of  the  apostles,"  that 
is,  Rome.  He  prescribes  the  rules  which  shall  govern  such 
trials,  the  chief  of  which  is,  that  "an  accused  bishop  "  should 
not  be  condemned  by  "  patriarchs  and  primates  "  until  "they 
find  that  the  person  either  confesses  himself  guilty,  or  is 
proved  so  by  witnesses  trustworthy  and  regularly  exam- 
ined, who  shall  not  be  fewer  in  number  than  were  those 
disciples  whom  the  Lord  directed  to  be  chosen  for  the  help 
of  the  apostles,  that  is,  seventy-two  "  —  a  number  quite  suf- 
ficent  to  prevent  a  conviction  in  any  case.  He  then  pro- 
ceeds to  declare, "  Nor  should  any  one  of  superior  rank  be 
indicted  or  condemned  on  the  accusation  of  inferiors,"  and 
that  all  cases  should  be  appealed  to  Rome.  He  claims  for 
the  pope  the  divine  authority  to  bind  and  loose  on  earth 
and  in  heaven,  as  conferred  by  Peter  and  by  the  apostolic 

ODu  Pin,  pp.  173-178. 


378  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

canons  and  constitutions.  (")  He  then  provides  what  was 
most  needed  for  establishing  the  power  of  the  hierarchy, 
and  securing  perfect  impunity  to  them  by  covering  up  and 
concealing  whatever  crime  a  bishop  may  commit,  in  these 
words:  "For  bishops  are  to  be  borne  by  the  laity  and  cler- 
gy, and  masters  by  servants,  in  order  that,  under  the  exer- 
cise of  endurance,  things  temporal  may  be  maintained,  and 
things  eternal  hoped  for."(^°)  Another  epistle  of  this  same 
pope,  to  the  bishops  of  Egypt,  is  only  worthy  of  notice  be- 
cause of  the  claim  of  power  it  sets  up  for  the  "Apostolic 
Church"  at  Rome,  and  the  assertion  that  Peter  was  "chief 
of  the  apostles."  Both  these  epistles  are  shown  to  be  for- 
geries, by  the  fact  that  they  contain  passages  from  Popes 
Leo  I.  (a.d.  440),  Vigilius  (a.d.  540),  Gregory  I.  (a.d.  590), 
Martin  I.  (a.d.  649),  Adrian  I.  (a.d.  772),  and  from  the  Theo- 
dosian  code. 

Pope  Calistus  is  represented  as  also  issuing  encyclical  let- 
ters upon  sundry  subjects.  In  one  he  says :  "  Let  no  one 
take  up  an  accusation  against  a  doctor  [teacher  or  priest], 
because  it  is  not  right  for  sons  to  find  fault  with  fathers, 
nor  for  slaves  to  wound  their  masters."  In  another,  to  the 
bishops  of  Gaul,  he  says,  "  Those  who  conspire  against  bish- 
ops, or  who  take  part  with  such,"  are  guilty  of  a  crime,  and 
are  condemned,  "  not  only  by  the  laws  of  the  Church,  but 
of  the  world."  Defining  the  punishment  prescribed  for  this 
ofiense,  he  is  made  to  say  it  had  been  "  ordained  "  by  his 
"  predecessors,"  that  if  the  inferior  clergy  were  guilty  of  it, 
they  "should  be  deprived  of  the  honor  which  they  enjoy;" 
that  those  who  did  not  belong  to  the  clergy  "should  be  cut 
off  from  communion,  and  expelled  from  the  Church ;"  and 
"  that  all  men  of  both  orders  should  be  infamous ;  and  that, 
too,  not  only  for  those  who  did  the  deed,  but  for  those  also 
who  took  part  with  such."  Assigning  the  reason  for  this 
extraordinary  protection  to  the  bishops,  and  severity  to 
their  accusers,  he  says  :  "  For  it  is  but  equitable  that  those 


C^)  Du  Pin  shows,  incontrovertibly,  that  these  canons  and  constitutions 
attributed  to  the  apostles  are  also  spurious. — Du  Pin's  Eccl.  Hist.,  vol.  i., 
pp.  13-16. 

C")  "Anti-Nicene  Library,"  vol.  ix.,  p.  145,  Epistles  of  Pope  Zephyrinus. 


POPE  URBAN  I.  379 

who  despise  the  divine  mandates,  and  prove  themselves  dis- 
obedient to  the  mandates  of  the  fathers,  should  be  chastised 
with  severer  penalties,  in  order  that  others  may  fear  to  do 
such  things,  and  that  all  may  rejoice  in  brotherly  concord, 
and  all  take  to  themselves  the  example  of  severity  and 
goodness."  Section  II.  is  on  "  those  who  have  intercourse 
with  excommunicated  persons,  or  with  unbelievers."  No  one 
is  to  "  have  any  intercourse  with  such  in  speech,  or  in  eat- 
ing or  drinking,  or  in  the  salutation  with  the  kiss,  nor  let 
him  greet  such  ;  because,  whosoever  willingly  holds  inter- 
course with  the  excommunicated,  in  these  or  other  prohibit- 
ed matters,  will  subject  himself,  according  to  the  ordinance 
of  the  apostles,  to  like  excommunication.  From  these,  there- 
fore, let  the  clergy  and  laity  keep  themselves,  if  they  would 
not  have  the  same  penalty  to  endure.  Also,  do  not  join 
with  unbelievers,  neither  have  any  fellowship  with  them. 
They  who  do  such  things,  indeed,  are  judged,  not  as  believ- 
ers, but  as  unbelievers."  Section  III.  treats  of  "  those  who 
ought  not  to  be  permitted  to  prefer  an  accusation,  or  to 
bear  witness,  etc.,"  and  says:  "Those,  again,  who  are  sus- 
pected in  the  matter  of  the  right  faith  should  by  no  means 
be  permitted  to  prefer  charges  against  priests  and  against 
those  of  whose  faith  there  is  no  doubt ;  and  such  persons 
should  be  held  of  doubtful  authority  in  matters  of  human 
testimony.  Their  voice,  consequently,  should  be  reckoned 
invalid  whose  faith  is  doubted,  and  no  credit  should  be 
given  to  those  who  are  ignorant  of  the  right  faith."  Even 
as  it  regards  one  who  is  entitled  to  make  an  accusation 
against  a  bishop  or  priest,  he  must  not  do  it,  except  in  the 
presence  of  him  whom  he  seeks  to  accuse.  (^^)  These  epis- 
tles contain  passages  taken  from  the  Council  of  Nice,  and 
the  fifth  Council  of  Rome,  which  were  held  long  after;  and 
from  the  popes  Gelasius  (a.d.  492),  Symmachus  (a.d.  498), 
Gregory  I.  (a.d.  590),  and  Adrian  I.  (a.d.  772)  —  all  showing 
their  false  and  fraudulent  character. 

There  is    an  epistle  containing  an  ex-cathedrd  decree  of 
Pope  Urban  I.  addressed  "  to  all  Christians,"  wherein  it  is 


Q^)  "Anti-Nicene  Christian  Library,"  vol.  ix.,  p.  203,  Epistles  of  Pope  Ca- 
listus. 


380  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

prescribed  that,  instead  of  the  practice  which  prevailed 
among  the  early  Christians  of  holding  property  in  common, 
it  should  be  "  left  in  the  hands  of  the  bishops,  who  hold  the 
place  of  the  apostles ;"  that  the  bishops  should  have  "  ele- 
vated seats,  set  up  and  prepared  like  a  throne,  *  to  show '  by 
these  that  the  power  of  inspection  and  of  judging,  and  the 
authority  to  loose  and  bind,  are  given  to  them  by  the  Lord ;" 
that  the  faithful  should  hold  "  no  communication  with  those 
with  whom  they  [the  bishops]  have  none ;"  and  that  those 
"whom  they  have  cast  out"  shall  not  be  received. ('')  The 
forgery  of  this  epistle  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  it  contains 
thoughts  and  words  from  Eusebius,  who  was  not  born  until 
nearly  one  hundred  years  after,  from  Pope  Gregory  IV.  (a.d. 
827),  and  from  the  Theodosian  code. 

Pope  Pontianus  had  but  little  time  for  issuing  decrees; 
for  his  entire  pontificate  lasted  only  a  few  months.  For  the 
suspicion  of  wishing  to  disturb  the  peace  of  the  Roman  em- 
pire, during  the  reign  of  Alexander  Severus,  he  was  banish- 
ed to  Siberia,  where  he  remained  till  about  the  year  235-237, 
when  he  was  brought  back,  "  and  expired  under  the  scourge." 
Eusebius  makes  his  pontificate  embrace  five  or  six  years, 
but  there  is  great  uncertainty  about  it.  Nevertheless,  epis- 
tles from  him  are  placed  among  these  palpable  forgeries.  In 
the  first,  to  Felix  Subscribonius,"  On  the  Honor  to  be  bestow- 
ed on  Priests,"  he  is  represented  as  saying:  "And,  again, 
they  are  not  to  be  accused  by  the  infamous  or  the  wicked, 
or  the  hostile,  or  by  members  of  another  sect  or  religion.  If 
they  sin,  they  are  to  be  arraigned  by  other  priests ;  further, 
they  are  to  be  held  in  check  by  the  chief  pontiffs,  and  they 
are  not  to  be  arraigned  or  restrained  by  seculars  or  by  men 
of  evil  life."  In  his  second  epistle,  "  to  all  bishops,"  he  is 
made  to  say :  "  Wherefore  persons  suspected,  or  hostile,  or 
litigious,  and  those  who  are  not  of  good  conversation,  or 
whose  life  is  reprehensible,  and  those  who  do  not  teach  the 
right  faith,  have  been  debarred  from  being  either  accusers 
or  witnesses  by  our  predecessors  with  apostolic  authority ; 
and  we,  too,  remove  them  from  that  function,  and  exclude 
them  from  it  in  times  to  come,  etc."(")      To  show  the  for- 

(^)  "Anti-Nicene  Library ,"  vol .  ix.,  p.  217,  Epistle  of  Pope  Urban  I. 
O  Ibid.,  vol.  ix.,  p.  232,  Pope  Pontianus. 


POPES  ANTERUS  AND  FABIAN.  381 

gery  of  these  epistles,  Du  Pin  says  they  "are  made  up  of 
passages  taken  out  of  the  vulgar  Latin,  St.  Gregory,  St.  Je- 
rome, Sixtus  the  Pythagorean :  the  rest  is  written  in  a  bar- 
barous style." 

An  epistle  from  Pope  Anterus,  "  On  the  Transference  of 
Bishops,"  was  designed  to  prove,  what  no  antecedent  histo- 
ry shows,  that  Peter,  as  bishop,  was  transferred  from  Anti- 
och  to  Rome.  He  says,  "Peter,  our  holy  master  and  the 
prince  of  the  apostles,  was  translated  for  the  sake  of  the 
common  good  from  Antioch  to  Rome,  in  order  that  he  might 
be  in  a  position  there  of  doing  more  service."  .At  another 
place  he  recognizes  the  obligation  of  the  old  Mosaic  law, 
"  that  whoever  has  not  given  obedience  to  the  priests 
should  be  stoned  outside  the  camp  by  the  people,  or,  with 
his  neck  beneath  the  sword,  should  expiate  his  presumption 
with  his  blood ;"(^*)  with  the  single  qualification  that  "now, 
however,  the  disobedient  is  cut  off  by  spiritual  chastise- 
ment, and,  being  cast  out  of  the  Church,  is  torn  by  the  rab- 
id mouth  of  demons."(^^)  Du  Pin  establishes  this  forgery 
by  showing  that  the  author  speaks  of  a  Bishop  of  Ephesus 
named  Felix,  when  there  was  none  such,  and  of  a  Bishop 
of  Alexandria  named  Eusebius,  which  was  untrue.  He  also 
shows  that  he  was  contradicted  by  the  three  councils,  of  An- 
tioch, Sardica,  and  Chalcedon;  and  that  he  quotes  from  popes 
and  others  who  did  not  live  until  after  that  time. 

There  are  epistles  from  Pope  Fabian,  or  Fabianus,  who, 
according  to  Eusebius,  was  indebted  for  his  election  to  the 
presence  of  the  Holy  Ghost  alighting  upon  his  head  in  the 
form  of  a  dove !  This  pope  employed  the  power  of  excom- 
munication against  Privatus,  a  bishop,  for  heresy ;  and  inau- 
gurated the  ceremony  of  prostration  at  the  feet  of  the  pope 
upon  the  occasion  of  his  election.  Therefore  there  seemed, 
doubtless,  to  be  a  fitness  in  attributing  some  of  these  for- 
geries to  him.  The  first  of  his  epistles  is  addressed  "  to  all 
the  ministers  of  the  Church  Catholic,"  and  concerns  "those 
who  ought  not  to  be  admitted  to  clear  themselves,  and  of 
the  duty  of  having  no  fellowship  with  the  excommunicated." 

(^*)  Deuteronomy  xviii.,  12. 

^35^   "  Anti-Nicene  Library,"  vol.  ix.,  p.  240,  Pope  Anterus. 


382  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

Assuming  that  "by  the  divine  precepts  and  the  apostolic 
institutes "  the  pope  is  required  to  watch  over  *'  all  the 
churches,"  and  exhorting  the  clergy  to  be  "obedient  and 
faithful  children  of  the  holy  Church  of  God" — that  is,  of 
Rome — he  says,  "These  men,  and  all  else  who  do  not  teach 
the  true  doctrine,  and  hold  not  the  true  faith,  can  not  act 
as  accusers  of  any  true  believer,  because  they  are  branded 
with  infamy,  and  are  cut  off  from  the  bosom  of  our  holy 
mother,  the  Church,  by  the  sword  of  the  apostles,  until 
their  return  to  correct  conversation  and  belief."  And  he 
is  made  to  repeat  the  same  idea  in  other  forms,  thus :  "All 
who  come  under  suspicion  with  respect  to  the  Catholic 
faith  can  not  be  admitted  as  accusers  of  those  who  hold  the 
true  creed f'  and  thus:  "And  therefore  are  charges,  which 
are  preferred  by  those  who  are  objects  of  suspicion  in  the 
matter  of  the  true  faith,  rejected."  He  is  also  represent- 
ed as  saying,  "And  if  any  one,  setting  aside  the  rules  wit- 
tingly, sings  with  the  excommunicated  in  his  house,  or 
speaks  or  prays  in  company  with  them,  that  man  is  to  be 
deprived  of  the  privilege  of  communion."  He  is  then  made- 
to  originate  and  invent,  what  every  reader  of  ecclesiastical 
history  knows  to  be  untrue,  the  statement  that  Peter  or- 
dained Clement  as  his  successor  in  the  pontificate,  and  "ad-- 
dressed  the  people"  at  his  ordination;  whereas  Peter  died 
about  the  year  65-67,  and  Clement's  pontificate  did  not 
commence  till  the  year  91,  nearly  thirty  years  after !  The 
words  he  is  said  to  have  used  are  these:  "Whence,  also, 
the  blessed  chief  of  the  apostles,  Peter,  addressing  the  peo- 
ple at  the  ordination  of  Clement,  says  this,  among  other 
things ;"  making  him  say  that  no  man  should  be  "  on  terms 
of  friendship "  with  any  one  who  was  hostile  to  Clement ; 
and  also :  "  If,  however,  any  one  is  not  friendly,  and  speaks 
with  those  with  whom  he  [the  chief]  speaks  not,  such  a 
one  belongs  to  those  who  seek  to  exterminate  the  Church 
of  God ;  and  though  he  seems  to  be  with  you  in  body,  he 
is  against  you  in  mind  and  heart.  And  such  a  one  is  a 
much  more  dangerous  enemy  than  those  who  are  without, 
and  who  are  openly  hostile."  All  this  is  as  entirely  opposed 
to  the  spirit  of  true  Christianity,  such  as  Peter  taught  in 
obedience  to  the  precepts  and  example  of  his  Divine  mas- 


PRIESTS  ABOVE  ALL  HUMAN  LAWS.  383 

ter,  as  it  is  consistent  with  that  stupendous  system  of  pa- 
pal power  and  fraud  which  these  forgeries  were  designed  to 
build  up. 

There  is  another  epistle  of  this  same  pope,  addressed  "  to 
all  the  bishops  of  the  East."  A  portion  of  this  has  reference 
to  the  renewal  of  the  chrism  at  the  Lord's- supper  every 
year;  but  it  does  not  fail  to  lay  down  the  same  instruction, 
attributed  by  these  forged  Decretals  to  his  predecessors. 
These  words  are  put  into  his  mouth :  "  The  apostles  them- 
selves and  their  successors  decreed  of  old  time  that  those 
persons  should  not  be  admitted  to  lay  accusations  who  are 
under  suspicion,. ..  .or  who  are  doubtful  in  the  matter  of 
the  true  faith."  Also:  "Those  have  neither  the  right  nor 
the  power  to  accuse  the  priests  or  the  clergy,  who  are  in- 
capable themselves  of  being  made  priests  legitimately,  and 
are  not  of  their  order,"  etc.  And  again  :  "  The  priests,  too, 
whom  the  Lord  has  taken  to  himself  from  among  all  men, 
and  has  willed  to  be  his  own,  are  not  to  be  dealt  with  light- 
ly, nor  injured,  nor  rashly  accused  or  reprehended,  save  by 
their  masters,  seeing  that  the  Lord  has  chosen  to  reserve 
their  causes  to  himself,  and  ministers  vengeance  according 

to  his  own  judgment For  these  are  rather  to  be  borne 

with  by  the  faithful  than  made  subjects  of  reproach,  just  as 
there  is  chaff  with  the  wheat  even  in  the  last  winnowing, 
and  as  there  is  bad  fish  with  good  even  on  their  separation, 
which  is  yet  to  be  on  the  shore — that  is  to  say,  at  the  end  of 
the  world.  By  no  means,  then,  can  that  mayi  he  condemned 
by  a  human  examination  whom  God  has  reserved  for  his 
own  judgment,  that  the  purpose  of  God,  according  to  which 
he  has  decreed  to  save  what  had  perished,  may  be  unaltera- 
ble." He  is  then  made  to  declare  that  all  who  have  sinned 
shall  "go  down  into  the  pit,"  unless  ^^ restored  by  sacerdotal 
authority  f''  and  to  assign  to  the  apostles  the  determination 
"  that  the  accusing  of  priests  should  be  a  matter  undertaken 
with  difficulty,  or  never  undertaken,  that  they  ought  not  to 
be  ruined  or  displaced  by  wicked  men."  By  the  assumption 
that  he,  as  pope,  is  equal  to  the  apostles,  he  is  made  to  de- 
clare that  if  any  one  of  the  clergy  "  proves  an  enemy  to  his 
bishops,  and  seeks  to  criminate  them,"  he  shall  be  removed 
and  given  over  to  the  curiae^  or  Court  of  the  Inquisition  at 


384  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

Rome,  as  its  prisoner  and  slave  for  life,  and  "  remain  infa- 
mous without  any  hope  of  restoration ;"  and  then  this  epis- 
tle proceeds,  "In  like  manner,  we  decree  and  ordain  by 
apostolic  authority  that  the  flock  should  ?iot  dare  to  bring  a 
charge  against  their  pastor^  to  whose  care  they  had  been 
consigned,  unless  he  falls  into  error  in  the  faith;  for  the 
deeds  of  superiors  are  not  to  be  smitten  with  the  sword  of 
the  mouth ;  neither  can  the  disciple  be  above  the  master," 
etc.  Again:  "After  the  example  of  Ham,  the  son  of  Noah, 
they  are  condemned  who  bring  the  faults  of  their  fathers 
into  public  view,  or  presume  to  accuse  or  calumniate  them, 
even  as  was  the  case  with  Ham,  who  did  not  cover  the 
shame  of  his  father  Noah,  but  exhibited  it  for  mockery. 
And  in  like  manner  those  are  justified  by  the  example  of 
Shem  and  Japhet,  who  reverently  cover  and  seek  not  to  dis- 
play those  matters  in  which  they  find  that  their  fathers  have 
erred."  Then  the  mode  of  procedure  against  a  bishop  for 
violating  the  faith  is  prescribed,  when  the  epistle  says,  "For 
his  other  actings,  however,  he  is  rather  to  be  borne  with  by 
his  flock  and  those  put  under  him,  than  accused  or  made  the 
subject  of  public  detraction,"  etc. 

There  is  also  a  third  epistle  from  this  same  pope,  address- 
ed "  to  Bishop  Hilary,"  wherein  he  is  represented  as  repeat- 
ing his  decree  in  favor  of  priestly  impunity,  in  these  words  : 
"  We  decree  and  resolve  that  those  who  are  not  of  good  con- 
versation, or  whose  life  is  impeachable,  or  whose  faith  and 
life  and  liberty  are  unknown,  should  not  have  the  power  of 
accusing  the  priests  of  the  Lord."f^) 

Epistles  are  also  inserted  from  other  popes,  to  wit :  Cor- 
nelius, Lucius,  Stephen  I.,  Sixtus  H.,  Dionysius,  Felix  I.,  Eu- 
tychian,  Caius,  Marcellinus,  Marcellus  L,  Eusebius,  Sylvester, 
Marcus,  Julius  I.,  Liberius,  and  Damasus  I.,  so  as  to  bring 
the  Decretals  down  to  the  time  of  Pope  Siricius,  in  the  year 
385  ;  and  thus,  with  those  compiled  by  Dionysius,  to  render 
the  code  of  canon  laws  complete.  The  great  ecclesiastical 
historian,  Du  Pin,  says  of  them  all,  that  they  "  are  full  of 
several  passages  taken  out  of  the  fjithers,  popes,  and  councils 
more  modern  than  the  very  popes  by  whom  they  are  pre- 

(^®)  "  Anti-Nicene  Library,"  vol.  ix.,  p.  249,  Epistles  of  Pope  Fabian. 


PROGRESS  OF  PAPAL  POWER.  385 

tended  to  be  written ;  and  in  which  many  things  are  to  be 
found  that  don't  in  the  least  agree  with  the  history  of  those 
times,  and  were  purposely  said  to  favor  the  court  of  Rome, 
and  establish  her  pretensions  against  the  rights  of  bishops 
and  the  liberties  of  churches.  But  it  would  take  up  too 
much  time  to  show  the  gross  falsity  of  these  monuments 
that  are  now  rejected  by  common  consent,  and  even  by 
those  authors  that  are  most  favorable  to  the  court  of  Rome, 
who  are  obliged  to  abandon  the  patronage  of  these  epistles 
though  they  have  done  a  great  deal  of  service  in  establishing 
the  greatness  of  the  court  of  Rome,  and  ruining  the  ancient 
discipline  of  the  Church,  especially  in  relation  to  ecclesias- 
tical decisions  and  rights  of  bishops."(") 

These  liberal  quotations  from  the  False  Decretals — other- 
wise scarcely  excusable — are  necessary  to  show  how  the 
popes  and  the  Roman  Catholic  hierarchy  have  laid  the  foun- 
dation of  their  enormous  power  and  prerogatives.  The  sys- 
tem they  have  built  upon  this  foundation  would  have  been 
bad  enough  if  what  has  been  put  into  the  mouths  of  these 
popes  had  been  actually  uttered  by  them.  But  when  it  is 
considered  that  these  thrngs  are  the  corrupt  inventions  of 
priests  of  the  ninth  century,  and  that  this  fact  is  known  to 
all  intelligent  Roman  Catholics,  and  frankly  admitted  by 
many  of  them,  it  almost  staggers  human  credulity  to  sup- 
pose that  there  are  now  any  in  the  world  who  are  willing 
to  risk  their  reputation  for  integrity  and  candor  by  attempt- 
ing to  maintain  a  system  thus  originated  and  upheld.  There 
is  nothing  else,  among  all  the  nations  of  earth,  bearing  any 
resemblance  to  it — no  other  system  by  which  it  has  been  so 
daringly  and  perseveringly  proposed  to  erect  within  all  the 
governments  a  foreign  and  antagonistic  power,  independent 
of  all  human  law,  and  irresponsible  to  human  authority.  By 
means  of  it  emperors,  kings,  princes,  and  peoples  have  been 
brought  down  in  abject  humiliation  at  the  feet  of  innu- 
merable popes,  who,  claiming  to  be  in  the  place  of  God  on 
earth,  have  lorded  it  over  them  with  a  severity  which  never 
abated  and  an  ambition  that  could  never  be  satisfied.  It 
is  marvelous  to  contemplate  the  origin  and  progress  of  such 

C)  Du  Pin's  "  Eccl.  Hist.,"  vol.  i.,  p.  178. 
25 


386  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

a  structure  of  fraud  and  wrong,  to  observe  the  popular  deg- 
radation which  it  wrought  out,  as  the  means  of  securing  the 
triumph  of  the  papacy,  and  to  see  the  patience  with  which 
the  world  now  tolerates  the  insolent  ambition  which  de- 
mands its  reconstruction  in  the  name  of  God  and  humanity ! 
This  language  is  not  too  harsh.  The  pretense  set  up  in 
these  false  and  forged  decrees  deserves  condemnation  in 
even  harsher  and  severer  terms.  They  were  designed  to  se- 
cure to  the  priesthood  the  most  perfect  impunity,  and  to 
place  them  so  far  above  the  people  as  to  put  it  out  of  the 
power  of  the  latter  even  to  complain  at  their  oppressions. 
They  allow  a  bishop  or  priest  to  commit  any  crime  he 
pleases — murder,  robbery,  rape,  or  seduction — and  deny  his 
responsibility  to  the  laws  of  the  country  where  he  resid^ 
or  to  any  other  law  but  that  which  the  pope  may  enact ! 
They  command  the  members  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
to  regard  these  bishops  and  priests  as  their  masters,  and  to 
conceal  and  cover  up  whatsoever  crimes  they  may  commit, 
rather  than  bring  disgrace  upon  the  Church !  They  pro- 
nounce as  unworthy  of  belief  all  who  are  not  members  of 
that  Church,  so  as  to  render  the  'conviction  of  a  bishop  or 
priest  impossible  upon  their  testimony  before  the  court  of 
Rome,  even  for  the  most  outrageous  offenses !  They,  in  fact, 
authorize  and  license  whatsoever  a  bishop  or  priest  shall  do, 
although  he  may  drag  his  clerical  robes  into  the  very  filth 
and  mire  of  profligacy,  prostitution,  and  vice ! 


PSEUDO-ISIDORIAN  DECRETALS.  387 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

The  False  Decretals. — Nicholas  I.  governed  by  Them. — His  Character.'^ 
Adrian  II.  —John  VIII.— John  XII.  —Benedict  IX.— Three  Popes  at 
Same  Time. — German  Emperors  create  Popes. — Leo  IX. — ,Hildebrand. 
— He  becomes  Pope  as  Gregory  VII. — Principles  established  by  Him. — 
His  Quarrel  with  Philip  of  France.  —  His  Bull  against  Henry  IV. — He 
adopts  the  False  Decretals. — Pius  IX.  does  the  Same. — Gregory  VII. 
stirs  up  Revolt  in  Germany. — The  Emperor  Henry  IV.  in  Rome. — Death 
of  Gregory  VII. — His  Successors  maintain  his  Policy. — Urban  II. — Ca- 
lixtus  II. — Adrian  IV.  grants  Ireland  to  England. — The  Gratian  Decre- 
tals.— They  authorize  Physical  Compulsion  and  Torture. — Arnold  of  Bres- 
cia burned  by  Adrian  IV. — Alexander  III.  and  Victor  IV. — Alexander 
III.  releases  the  Subjects  of  Frederick  Barbarossa  from  their  Allegiance. — 
His  Character. — Submission  of  Frederick. — The  Third  Lateran  Council. 
— Decree  authorizing  Waldenses  and  Albigenses  to  be  put  to  Death. — 
The  Thirteenth  Century. — Innocent  III. — His  Ambition  and  Usurpation. 
— His  Claim  of  Divine  Power. — He  releases  the  Subjects  of  Otho  from 
their  Allegiance. — His  Bull  to  put  the  Vaudois  to  Death.  —  The  Inquisi- 
tion.— Boniface  VIII. —  His  Bull  Unam  Sanctam. —  He  caused  a  New 
Body  of  False  Decretals  to  be  composed.  —  Opposition  of  the  Galilean 
Church. 

We  shall  leave  our  investigations  incomplete,  and  our 
task  unfinished,  without  further  notice  of  the  False  Decre- 
tals and  their  contribution  to  the  growth  of  the  temporal 
power,  inasmuch  as  the  principles  derived  from  them  still 
remain  a  part  of  the  canon  law  of  Rome  —  those  of  the  En- 
cyclical and  Syllabus  of  Pius  IX.  being  taken  in  part  from 
them  —  and  as  the  present  struggles  of  the  papacy  and  its 
Jesuit  supporters  are  designed  for  the  purpose  of  reviving 
and  enforcing  them  wheresoever  they  can  obtain  the  power 
to  do  so. 

Although  there  were  many  good  and  pious  Christians 
among  the  early  popes  and  clergy  of  Rome,  yet  there  was 
enough  in  the  vicious  habits  of  many  of  those  who  consti- 
tuted the  priesthood,  at  the  time  when  these  Decretals  are 
alleged  to  have  been  dated,  to  justify  the  assignment  of 
them  to  the  popes  whose  names  they  bear.     Many  of  them 


388  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

yielded  to  the  influence  of  the  example  of  Pope  Victor,  and 
the  effect  was  apparent  in  their  ambition  and  that  of  the 
clergy,  which  existed  to  such  a  degree  that  religion  was  al- 
most entirely  neglected,  except  in  the  mere  ceremonial  re- 
quirements of  the  Church.  We  have  the  authority  of  Eu- 
sebius  —  who  is  quoted  by  all  Roman  Catholic  ecclesiastic- 
al authors  as  reliable  authority  —  for  the  condition  of  the 
priesthood  in  his  time.  There  is  no  other  author  whose 
history  covers  the  times  to  which  he  refers,  and  as  a  lead- 
ing prelate,  and  a  member  of  the  celebrated  Council  of  Nice, 
he  had  ample  opportunity  for  ascertaining  the  true  condi- 
tion of  affairs.     He  says : 

"  But  some  that  appeared  to  be  our  pastors,  deserting  the 
law  of  piety ^  were  inflamed  against  each  other  with  mutual 
strifes,  only  accumulating  quarrels  and  threats,  rivalship, 
hostility,  and  hatred  to  each  other,  only  anxious  to  assert 
the  government  as  a  kind  of  sovereignty  for  themselves."(') 

And  it  is  said  by  Cormenin  that  Marcellinus  —  who  was 
pope  in  the  year  304,  and  has  been  canonized  as  a  saint  — 
even  abjured  the  Christian  religion,  in  order  thereby  to  es- 
cape the  persecution  of  the  Emperor  Diocletian  I^^)  Even 
if  these  things  were  not  true  to  the  extent  alleged,  they 
were  sufficiently  so,  beyond  all  question,  to  have  had  an  in- 
jurious influence  upon  the  cause  of  true  piety,  and  to  have 
placed  the  affairs  of  the  Church  in  an  unsettled  and  preca- 

(')  *'Eccl.  Hist.,"  by  Eusebius,  bk.  viii.,  ch.  i.  At  another  place,  in  his 
"Book  of  Martyrs,"  when  speaking  of  the  prelates  of  the  Church,  Eusebius 
says  that  he  had  "thought  proper  to  pass  by"  other  events  than  those  re- 
lated by  him — that  is,  "  particularly  the  circumstances  of  the  different  heads 
of  the  churches,  who,  from  being  shepherds  of  the  reasonable  flocks  of  Christ 
that  did  not  govern  in  a  lawful  and  becoming  manner,  were  condemned,  by 

divine  justice,  as  unworthy  of  stick  a  charge Moreover,  the  ambitious 

aspirings  of  many  to  office,  and  the  injudicious  and  unlawful  ordinations 
that  took  place,  the  divisions  among  the  confessors  themselves,  the  great 
schisms  and  difficulties  industriously  fomented  by  the  factious  among  the 
new  members  against  the  relics  of  the  Church,  devising  one  innovation  after 
another,  and  unmercifully  thrusting  them  into  the  midst  of  all  these  calami- 
ties, heaping  up  affliction  upon  affliction  ;  all  this,  I  say,  I  have  resolved  to 
pass  by,  judging  it  foreign  to  my  purpose,  wishing,  as  I  said  in  the  beginning, 
to  shun  and  avoid  giving  an  account  of  them." — Book  of  Martyr s^  ch.  xii., 
pp.  374,  375. 

O  Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  48. 


ROME  IN  THE  NINTH  CENTURY.  389 

rious  condition,  the  precise  extent  of  which  it  is  now  ex- 
ceedingly difficult  to  ascertain.  And  this  accounts,  in  a 
large  measure,  for  the  pertinacity  with  which  these  False 
Decretals  have  been  assigned  to  those  times.  Their  au- 
thors well  understood,  at  the  date  of  their  origin,  and  their 
defenders  understand  now,  how  easy  it  is  to  make  history, 
and  to  make  it  acceptable  to  credulous  minds,  especially 
where  there  is  no  precise  detail  of  facts  to  expose  their 
falsehoods  and  assumptions.  By  all  Roman  Catholics  who 
accept  the  teachings  of  the  Church  uninquiringly,  these  De- 
cretals are  regarded  yet  as  true  and  genuine,  because  they 
have  been  put  forth  and  indorsed  by  infallible  popes,  and 
because  they  are  so  instructed  by  their  bishops  and  priests ; 
while  the  bishops  and  priests  deliberately  employ  them  as 
the  means  of  continuing  their  hierarchical  power  and  au- 
thority, and  thus  gratifying  their  inordinate  ambition. 

Mosheim,  after  pointing  out  how  different  the  ecclesiastic- 
al system  of  the  ninth  century  was  from  that  which  prevail- 
ed in  the  ancient  Church,  says  that  the  popes  found  it  "  nec- 
essary to  produce  the  authority  of  ancient  deeds  to  stop  the 
mouths  of  such  as  were  disposed  to  set  bounds  to  their  usur- 
pations ;"  and  he  then  proceeds : 

"  The  bishops  of  Rome  were  aware  of  this ;  and  as  those 
means  were  deemed  the  most  lawful  that  tended  best  to 
the  accomplishment  of  their  purposes,  they  employed  some 
of  their  most  ingenious  and  zealous  partisans  in  forging  con- 
ventions, acts  of  councils,  epistles,  and  the  like  records,  by 
which  it  might  appear  that  in  the  first  ages  of  the  Church 
the  Roman  pontiffs  were  clothed  with  the  same  spiritual 
majesty  and  supreme  authority  which  they  now  assumed. 
Among  these  fictitious  supports  of  the  papal  dignity  the  fa- 
mous Decretal  Epistles,  as  they  are  called,  said  to  have  been 
written  by  the  pontiffs  of  the  primitive  time,  deserve  chief- 
ly to  be  stigmatized.  They  were  the  production  of  an  ob- 
scure writer,  who  fraudulently  prefixed  to  them  the  name 
of  Isidore,  Bishop  of  Seville,  to  make  the  world  believe  that 
they  had  been  collected  by  this  illustrious  and  learned  prel- 
ate. Some  of  them  had  appeared  in  the  eighth  century, 
but  they  were  now  entirely  drawn  from  their  obscurity, 
and  produced,  with  an  air  of  ostentation  and  triumph,  to 


390  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

demonstrate  the  supremacy  of  the  Roman  pontiffs.  The  de- 
cisions of  a  certain  Roman  Council,  which  is  said  to  have 
been  holden  during  the  pontificate  of  Sylvester,  were  like- 
wise alleged  in  behalf  of  the  same  cause ;  hut  this  couficil 
had  not  been  heard  of  before  the  present  century^  and  the  ac- 
counts now  given  of  it  proceeded  from  the  same  source 
with  the  Decretals,  and  were  equally  authentic.  Be  that  as 
it  may,  the  decrees  of  this  pretended  council  contributed 
much  to  enrich  and  aggrandize  the  Roman  pontiffs,  and  ex- 
alt them  above  all  human  authority  and  jurisdiction.''^ 

Dean  Milman,  one  of  the  most  learned  and  reliable  au- 
thors of  the  present  times,  says:  "The  False  Decretals  do 
not  merely  assert  the  supremacy  of  the  popes — the  dignity 
and  privileges  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  —  they  comprehend 
the  whole  dogmatic  system  and  discipline  of  the  Church,  the 
whole  hierarchy  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest  degree,  their 
sanctity  and  immunities,  their  persecutions,  their  disputes, 
their  right  of  appeal  to  Rome But  for  the  too  mani- 
fest design,  the  aggrandizement  of  the  see  of  Rome  and  the 
aggrandizement  of  the  whole  clergy  in  subordination  to  the 
see  of  Rome ;  but  for  the  monstrous  ignorance  of  history, 
which  betrays  itself  in  glaring  anachronisms,  and  in  the  ut- 
ter confusion  of  the  order  of  events  and  the  lives  of  distin-- 
guished  men — the  former  awakening  keen  and  jealous  sus- 
picion, the  latter  making  the  detection  of  the  spuriousness 
of  the  whole  easy,  clear,  irrefragable — the  False  Decretals 
might  still  have  maintained  their  place  in  ecclesiastical  his- 
tory. They  are  now  given  up  by  all ;  not  a  voice  is  raised 
in  their  favor;  the  utmost  that  is  done  by  those  w^ho  can 
not  suppress  all  regret  at  their  explosion  is  to  palliate  the 
guilt  of  the  forger,  to  call  in  question  or  to  weaken  the  influ- 
ence which  they  had  in  their  own  day,  and  throughout  the 
later  history  of  Christianity."(*) 

That  they  are  now,  and  have  been  for  many  years,  regard- 
ed as  forgeries  by  candid  Roman  Catholics,  even  among 
the  ultramontanes,  is  undoubtedly  true.  Marchetti  says  : 
"  Learned  men  of  great  piety  have  declared  against  these 

(^)  Maclaine's  "  Mosheim's  Church  History,"  part  ii.,  ch.  ii.,  p.  216. 
O  "  Latin  Christianity,"  by  Milman,  vol.  iii.,  pp.  59,  60. 


FORGERIES  ADMITTED  BY  PAPISTS.  391 

false  collections,  which  Cardinal  Bona  frankly  calls  a  pious 
fraud:' 

"  Baronius  does  not  as  frankly  regard  them  as  a  fraud ; 
nevertheless,  he  would  not  use  them  in  his  *  Ecclesiastical 
Annals,'  lest  it  should  be  believed  that  the  Roman  Church 
needed  suspicious  documents  to  establish  her  rights." 

Marchetti  also  says :  "  We  may  conjecture  that  Isidore 
gathered  the  decretals  of  ancient  popes  which  the  persecu- 
tions of  the  first  centuries  had  not  permitted  to  be  col- 
lected, and  that,  animated  by  a  desire  to  transmit  the  col- 
lection to  posterity,  he  made  such  haste  that  he  overlooked 
some  faults  and  chronological  errors,  which  were  afterward 
corrected  by  a  more  exact  criticism. "Q 

While  they  are  here  rejected  as  false,  or,  at  least,  as  sus- 
picious, there  is  an  evident  disinclination  to  give  them  up. 
Yet  Fleury,  the  great  Roman  Catholic  historian,  is  too  frank 
to  participate  in  the  imposture  or  to  exhibit  any  such  incon- 
sistency.    He  thus  disposes  of  them : 

"  The  subject-matter  of  these  letters  reveals  their  spuri- 
ousness.  They  speak  of  archbishops,  primates,  patriarchs,  aB 
as  if  these  titles  had  existed  from  the  birth  of  the  Church. 
They  forbid  the  holding  of  any  council,  even  a  provincial 
one,  without  permission  from  the  pope,  and  represent  ap- 
peals to  Rome  as  habitual.  Frequent  complaint  is  therein 
made  of  usurpations  of  the  temporalities  of  the  Church. 
We  find  there  this  maxim,  that  bishops  falling  into  sin  may, 
after  having  done  penance,  exercise  their  functions  as  before. 
Finally,  the  principal  subject  of  these  Decretals  is  that  of 
complaints  against  bishops ;  there  is  scarcely  one  that  does 
not  speak  of  them  and  give  rules  to  make  them  difiicult. 
And  Isidore  makes  it  very  apparent  in  his  preface  that  he 
had  this  matter  deeply  at  heart."f) 

The  purpose  and  immediate  effect  of  the  False  Decretals 
were  shown  in  the  last  chapter,  in  the  encyclicals,  decrees, 
and  letters  of  Pope  Nicholas  I.  It  was  during  his  pontifi- 
cate that  they  took"  their  place  in  the  jurisprudence  of  Latin 
Christendom,"^  by  becoming  an  essential  part  of"  the  law 

Q  Apud  Abbe  Guettee,  in  his  late  work  on  "The  Papacy,"  p.  258  (note). 
(')  "Eecl.  Hist.,"  by  Fleury,  liv.,  xliv.  ;  apud  Guette'e,  p.  260  (note). 
C)  "Latin  Christianity,"  by  Milinaii,  vol.  iii.,  p.  58. 


392  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

of  the  Church."  He  introduced  them  at  Rome  with  true 
pontifical  audacity,  and  the  whole  history  of  his  pontificate 
shows  that  he  regarded  them  as  contributing  material  aid 
to  his  ambition.  He  did  not  hesitate  to  employ  them,  most 
unblushingly,  as  a  justification  for  his  outrageous  blasphe- 
mies and  usurpations.  Q  Now,  when  it  is  remembered  that 
he  did  not  become  pope  till  the  year  858;  that  previous  to 
that  time  nothing  of  the  kind  had  been  known  to  exist  at 
Rome ;  and  that  the  assumption  of  all-absorbing  supremacy 
was  based  upon  these  palpable  forgeries,  he  must  be  a  bold 
man,  and  greatly  insensible  to  shame,  who  will,  in  this  en- 
lightened and  inquiring  age,  attempt  to  excuse  or  palliate 
his  conduct.  Even  during  his  pontifical  reign,  powerful  as 
he  became,  the  French,  or  Galilean,  bishops  were  not  sub- 
dued by  his  threats  of  anathema  and  excommunication.  Aft- 
er the  Synod  of  Metz,  in  France,  had  sustained  the  claims  of 
Lothaire  to  his  kingdom,  which  Nicholas  was  endeavoring  to 
wrest  from  him,  he  tore  up  its  decrees,  pronounced  it  to  be 
"  an  assembly  of  brigands  and  robbers,"  and  "  declared  the 
French  prelates  to  be  deprived  of  episcopal  power."  He  ex- 
communicated and  anathematized  all  who  opposed  the  meas- 
ures of  his  grasping  ambition.  But  Gonthier,  Metropolitan 
of  Cologne;  Teutgard,  Archbishop  of  Treves;  John  of  Ra- 
venna, and  "  a  great  number  of  other  bishops,"  addressed 
him  a  letter,  wherein  they  called  him  "  infamous,"  "  a  greedy 
robber,"  "  the  murderer  of  Christians,"  "  iniquitous  and  cruel 
priest,"  "  sanguinary  wolf,"  "  cowardly  tyrant,"  "  the  most  in- 
famous of  the  ministers  of  the  temple  of  God,"  "  shameless 
cockatrice,"  "venomous  serpent,"  "dog," and  by  other  names 
equally  expressive  of  indignation  and  contempt;  and  con- 
cluded in  these  words: 

"  We  doubt  neither  thy  venom  nor  thy  bite ;  we  have  re- 

C)  *'Soon  after  receiving  the  new  implements  forged  in  the  Isidorian 
workshop  (about  8G3  or  864),  Nicholas  met  the  doubts  of  the  Prankish  bish- 
ops with  the  assurance  that  the  Roman  Church  had  long  preserved  all  those 
documents  with  honor  in  her  archives,  and  that  every  writing  of  a  pope,  even 
if  not  part  of  the  Dionysian  collection  of  canons,  was  binding  on  the  whole 
Church."—  The  Pope  and  the  Council,  by  "Janus,"  p.  80.  See,  also.  Church 
of  France,  by  Jervis,  vol.  i.,  p.  34.  D'Aguesseau  says  that  these  Decretals 
may  be  "more  correctly  styled  the  body  of  the  pope's  law  than  of  the  law 
of  the  Church."     Apud  Jervis,  Church  of  France,  vol.  i.,  p.  36  (note). 


BISHOPS  DENOUNCE  NICHOLAS  I.  393 

solved  with  our  brethren  to  tear  thy  sacrilegious  decretals, 
thy  impious  bulls,  and  will  leave  thee  to  growl  forth  thy 
powerless  thunders.  Thou  darest  to  accuse  of  impiety  those 
who  refuse  from  love  to  the  faith  to  submit  to  thy  sacrile- 
gious laws  !  Thou  who  castest  discord  among  Christians ; 
thou  who  violatest  evangelical  peace,  that  immortal  mark 
which  Christ  has  placed  upon  the  forehead  of  his  Church  ; 
thou,  execrable  pontiff,  who  spits  upon  the  book  of  thy  God, 
thou  darest  to  call  us  impious !  How,  then,  wilt  thou  call 
the  clergy  which  bends  before  thy  power,  those  unworthy 
priests  vomited  forth  from  hell,  and  whose  forehead  is  of 
wax,  their  heart  of  steel,  and  their  sides  are  formed  of  the 
wine  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  !  Go  to,  these  ministers  are 
well  made  to  crawl  under  thy  abominable  pride,  in  thy 
Rome,  frightful  Babylon,  which  thou  callest  the  holy  city, 
eternal  and  infallible  !  Go  to,  thy  cohort  of  priests,  soiled  with 
adulteries,  incests,  rapes,  and  assassinations,  is  well  worthy  to 
form  thy  infamous  court ;  for  Rome  is  the  residence  of  de- 
mons, and  thou, pope,  thou  art  its  Satan.^^^) 

These  bold  and  defiant  words  go  to  prove  that  there 
was,  for  a  time  at  least,  formidable  opposition  to  the  am- 
bitious intrigues  of  the  popes.  The  French  and  German 
clergy  were  so  far  removed  from  the  neighborhood  of  Rome 
that  they  were  slow  to  become  the  mere  slaves  of  papal 
dictation.  They  looked  rather  to  their  own  sovereigns  for 
protection  —  which  soon  brought  them  all,  sovereigns  and 
subjects,  under  the  pope's  censure  and  excommunication. 
And  thus  arose,  out  of  these  Decretals,  that  abhorrent  and 
dangerous  doctrine  which  so  disgraced  the  Middle  Ages,  by 
which  the  popes  claimed  the  power  to  release  the  subject 
from  his  allegiance  to  any  disobedient  prince,  and  to  put 
any  of  the  kingdoms  under  interdict,  on  account  of  matters 
merely  temporal,  and  in  no  way  concerning  the  faith  of  the 
Church.  An  instance  of  this  kind  occurred  under  the  pon- 
tificate of  Adrian  II.,  the  immediate  successor  of  Nicholas 
I.(^")     When  Lothaire,  King  of  Lorraine,  died,  he  left  no 

(^)  Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  241. 

('")  Pope  Adrian  II.  was  a  married  man.  His  wife's  name  was  Steph- 
ania.  He  had  a  daughter,  who  was  stolen  away  by  the  son  of  another  prel- 
ate ! — Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  250 ;  Milman,  vol,  iii.,  p.  67. 


394  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

rightful  heir  to  his  kingdom ;  and  a  claim  to  it  was  set  up 
by  his  brother  Louis,  who  prevailed  upon  Adrian  to  espouse 
his  cause  and  to  interfere  in  his  behalf  by  the  employment 
of  his  pontifical  authority.  The  pope  wrote  to  the  lords  of 
Lorraine,  not  requesting  merely,  but  commanding  them  to 
support  the  pretensions  of  Louis.  He  irreverently  and  im- 
piously made  this  command  "  in  the  name  of  Christ,"  and 
threatened  all  the  metropolitans,  dukes,  and  counts  with  ex- 
communication in  the  event  of  their  disobedience.  He  told 
them  that,  if  they  did  not  obey  him,  they  should  "  be  struck 
by  the  arms  which  God  has  placed  in  our  [his]  hands  for 
the  defense  of  this  prince ;"(")  thus  perverting  the  religious 
functions  of  his  office  by  using  them  to  accomplish  ends  en- 
tirely worldly.  Charles  the  Bald,  in  the  mean  time,  seized 
upon  the  dominions  of  Lothaire,  and  was  crowned  King  of 
Lorraine  with  the  consent  of  the  people,  and  by  the  bishops 
of  the  kingdom.  Pope  Adrian  was  greatly  incensed.  He 
declared  that  all  who  should  assist  Charles  in  his  diabolical 
usurpation  "  would  fall  under  anathema,  and  be  given  up  to 
the  companions  of  the  devil."  He  told  the  bishops  of  Lor- 
raine that  by  the  coronation  of  Charles  "  they  were  prepar- 
ing him  for  hell."('^)  While  he  did  not  accomplish  any 
thing  by  this  impertinent  intermeddling  with  the  affairs  of 
a  government  over  which  he  had  no  legal  control,  yet  he 
exhibited  the  purpose  to  interpose  his  pontifical  power  be- 
tween Charles  and  his  subjects,  and  thus  to  make  himself 
master  of  their  temporal  affairs.  That  he  did  it  under  the 
claim  of  authority  assumed  by  previous  popes,  and  affirmed 
by  the  False  Decretals,  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt.  Mil- 
man  says,  "  He  quoted  against  the  king  the  irrefragable  au- 
thority of  passages  from  the  pseudo-Isidorian  Decretals  " — 
that  is,  from  the  pretended  letters  of  Popes  Lucius  and 
Stephen. ('^)  And  thus  these  miserable  forgeries  began  ear- 
ly to  bear  their  natural  fruit.  So  strongly  did  Adrian  rely 
upon  them  to  sustain  his  presumptuous  demands,  that  he 
ventured  to.  censure  Charles  for  having  dared  to  insult  his 
pontifical  authority,  and  for  not  having  prostrated  himself 


(")  Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  255  ;   Milman,  vol.  iii.,  p.  71. 
C)  Milman,  vol,  iii.,  p.  71.  C^)  Ibid.,  p.  7C. 


ADRIAN  II.  STIRS  UP  REVOLT  IN  FRANCE.  395 

at  the  feet  of  his  legates  !  His  letter  to  him  concludes  thus : 
"  Impious  king,  we  order  thee  to  retire  from  the  kingdom  of 
Lorraine,  and  to  surrender  it  to  the  Emperor  Louis.  If  thou 
refusest  submission  to  our  will,  we  will  ourselves  go  into 
France  to  excommunicate  thee,  and  drive  thee  from  thy 
wicked  throne.''^*) 

Finding  Charles  unmoved  by  his  threats,  Adrian  sent  leg- 
ates into  France  to  excite  Carloman,  the  king's  son,  to  re- 
volt against  his  father — a  favorite  mode  of  procedure  with 
the  popes  of  that  age,  and  which  they  tried  to  justify  to 
themselves  and  the  world  upon  the  ground  that  the  good 
of  the  Church  required  it,  and  therefore  that  God  approved 
it.  Carloman  willingly  entered  into  the  papal  plans;  but 
he  was  arrested  by  Charles  before  they  were  carried  into 
execution,  and  severely  punished.  Charles  then  sent  the 
pope's  legates  back  to  Rome,  accompanied  by  his  own  em- 
bassadors, who  bore  a  letter  from  Hincmar,  Archbishop  of 
Rheims,  on  his  own  behalf  and  that  of  the  French  bishops, 
in  which  Adrian  was  severely  censured,  and  given  to  under- 
stand, in  plain  and  most  emphatic  terms,  that  neither  his 
anathemas  nor  excommunications  would  prevent  Charles 
from  holding  on  to  the  kingdom  of  Lorraine.  At  this  the 
pope  became  perfectly  infuriated,  and  immediately  wrote  to 
Charles,  calling  him  an  "execrable  prince,"  ordering  him  to 
surrender  Lorraine  to  Carloman,  whose  treason  he  had  al- 
ready excited,  and  informing  him  that  if  he  did  not,  he 
would  send  his  legate  into  his  "  accursed  kingdom  "  to  deal 
with  him  as  he  should  think  proper.  He  commanded  the 
French  lords  not  to  take  up  arms  in  defense  of  their  king, 
the  French  bishops  not  to  obey  his  orders — all  "under  the 
penalty  of  excommunication  and  eternal  damnation." 

Charles  now  became  irritated  "  by  the  audacity  and  inso- 
lence of  this  letter,"  and  instructed  Archbishop  Hincmar  to 
give  the  pope  to  understand,  in  unmistakable  terms,  and 
without  further  equivocation,  that  he  would  no  longer  sub- 
mit to  this  unwarrantable  interference  with  the  domestic 
affairs  of  France.  Among  other  things,  Hincmar's  letter  in 
behalf  of  the  king  contained  these  strong  words :  "  We  are 

(")  Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  257. 


396  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

established  by  God  sovereign  over  the  people,  and  are  arm- 
ed with  a  twofold  sword,  to  strike  the  wicked  and  defend 
the  good."  Bold  as  the  pope  was,  and  secure  as  he  felt 
himself  to  be,  in  that  ignorant  and  superstitious  age,  under 
the  protection  of  the  False  Decretals,  he  now  became  alarm- 
ed at  the  intrepidity  of  the  King  of  France.  He  knew  that 
Hincmar  had  counseled  the  king  to  separate  France  from 
Italy,  on  account,  mainly,  of  the  controversy  between  the 
pope  and  the  Galilean  Christians,  and  he  greatly  dreaded 
this  result,  on  account  of  the  fact  that  the  withdrawal  of 
French  protection  would  expose  Rome  to  powerful  and  vin- 
dictive enemies  in  other  directions.  He  was  anxious  to  hold 
on  to  France  by  means  of  the  alliance  formed  by  his  prede- 
cessors with  Pepin  and  Charlemagne,  and  govern  its  kings, 
at  least  to  the  extent  of  being  able  to  employ  their  military 
strength  in  defense  of  the  papacy ;  but  finding  Charles  not 
disposed  to  bow  before  him,  either  his  courage  failed  him, 
or  he  resolved  upon  practicing  such  duplicity  as  other 
popes  besides  him  have  well  understood  how  to  employ. 
In  this  art  he  was  a  perfect  adept.  Consequently,  he  im- 
mediately retracted  every  thing  he  had  said  against  Charles 
in  a  letter  which,  as  a  specimen  of  papal  insincerity  and  hy- 
pocrisy, has  scarcely  a  parallel.  It  shows  how  unreliable 
has  been  the  judgment  of  at  least  one  of  the  great  popes 
about  the  duty  which  men  owe  to  God.  What  it  is  one 
day  it  is  not  the  next,  accordingly  as  the  pope's  views  of 
temporal  policy  may  change,  or  as  the  papacy  is  the  gainer 
or  the  loser !     Here  is  what  he  said  to  the  king : 

"  Prince  Charles,  we  have  been  apprised  by  virtuous  per- 
sons that  you  are  the  most  zealous  protector  of  churches  in 
the  world  ;  that  there  exists  not  in  your  immense  kingdom 
any  bishopric  or  monastery  on  which  you  have  not  heaped 
wealth,  and  we  know  that  you  honor  the  see  of  St.  Peter, 
and  that  you  desire  to  spread  your  liberality  on  his  vicar, 
and  to  defend  him  against  all  his  enemies. 

"We  consequently  retract  our  former  decisions,  recogniz- 
ing that  you  have  acted  with  justice  in  punishing  a  guilty 
son  and  a  prelatical  debauchee,  and  in  causing  yourself  to  be 
declared  sovereign  of  Lorraine  and  Burgundy.  We  renew  to 
you  the  assurance  that  we,  the  clergy,  the  people,  and  the  no- 


THE  HYPOCRISY  OF  ADRIAN  11.  397 

bility  of  Rome,  wait  with  impatience  for  the  day  on  which 
you  shall  be  declared  king,  patrician,  emperor,  and  defender 
of  the  Church.  TFe,  however^  beseech  you  to  keep  this  letter  a 
secret  from  your  nephew  Louis.'^'' [^^) 

Thus  we  see  how  these  False  Decretals  became  a  part  of 
the  canon  law  of  Rome,  how  they  were  expressly  prepared 
in  aid  of  papal  ambition,  and  how  unblushingly  they  were 
employed  to  justify  perfidious  popes  in  assuming,  as  one  of 
their  official  prerogatives  derived  from  Peter,  the  right  to 
dictate  the  temporal  policy  of  governments,  to  make  and 
unmake  kings,  and  to  require  universal  obedience ;  such  obe- 
dience as  should  be  prescribed  by  an  ecclesiastical  hierarchy 
raised  above  all  human  laws,  entitled  to  commit  the  highest 
crimes,  and  to  perpetrate  all  sorts  of  wrongs  with  impuni- 
ty and  without  responsibility  to  any  tribunals  except  those 
which  were  the  mere  passive  and  submissive  tools  of  the  pa- 
pal will.  True,  the  blow  aimed  by  Adrian  II.  at  the  rights 
of  the  French  king  recoiled  upon  his  own  head,  and  taught 
him  that  the  Gallican  Christians,  under  the  lead  of  Hincmar, 
were  not  as  easily  reduced  to  obedience  as  were  those  of 
Italy,  upon  whose  necks  he  had  already  planted  his  pontif- 
ical heel.  But  his  immediate  successor,  John  VIIL,  endeav- 
ored to  recover  from  the  effects  of  this  recoil,  and  to  regain 
the  ground  he  had  lost  by  recognizing  the  refractory  Charles 
as  the  legitimate  sovereign  of  Lorraine  and  Burgundy.  This 
he  resolved  to  do,  if  possible,  by  imitating  the  perfidious  pol- 
icy of  Adrian ;  so  as  to  bring  Charles,  by  flattery,  into  the 
meshes  of  his  pontifical  net — a  result  which  he  well  under- 
stood could  not  be  accomplished  by  threats.  Accordingly, 
he  offered  to  make  him  "  the  protector  of  the  Holy  See," 
and  for  that  purpose  invited  him  to  Rome.  Charles  could 
not  resist  the  temptation,  and,  upon  going  to  Rome,  was 
crowned  emperor  by  the  pope,  who,  true  to  the  papal  policy, 
took  care  to  say  to  him,  as  he  placed  the  crown  upon  his 
brow,  "  Do  not  forget,  prince,  that  the  popes  have  the  right 
to  create  emperors  P"*  {^'^)  Charles  was  overcome  by  his  am- 
bition, and  by  accepting  the  crown  upon  these  conditions  re- 
duced the  empire  over  which  he  presided  to  the  humiliating 

(''■)  Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  259.  C)  Ibid.,  vol.  i.,  p.  260. 


398  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

condition  of  a  fief  to  the  Holy  See,  and  gave  his  sanction 
to  the  custom  of  crowning  emperors  by  the. popes;  and,  in 
the  end,  to  the  recognition  of  their  authority  over  all  the 
governments  and  temporal  affairs  of  Europe.  With  what 
complacency  such  examples  as  this  are  referred  to  by  the 
papal  writers  in  proof  of  the  pope's  supremacy !  An  agree- 
ment between  kings  and  popes  that  they  shall  jointly  gov- 
ern all  mankind  is  held  up  to  the  world  as  a  part  of  the  law 
of  God  !  Shall  this  example  of  the  ninth  century  be  repeat- 
ed in  the  nineteenth  ?  Or  shall  those  who  are  now  seeking 
to  repeat  it  be  rebuked  by  the  voice  of  popular  indignation, 
which  shall  ring  in  their  ears  so  long  as  they  shall  live  ? 

But  the  end  sought  for  was  only  reached  by  slow  degrees 
and  by  gradual  usurpations.  It  took  many  years  of  severe 
struggle  on  the  part  of  the  popes  to  consummate  it,  by  the 
abolition  of  the  old  and  the  introduction  of  the  new  ecclesi- 
astical system  founded  upon  the  pseudo-Isidorian  Decretals. 
It  required  the  combined  intellect,  courage,  and  unbending 
will  of  the  three  great  popes,  Gregory  VII.,  Alexander  III., 
and  Innocent  III.,  to  do  what  all  the  other  popes  were  un- 
able to  accomplish;  that  is,  to  elevate  the  papacy  above 
all  the  nations,  and  place  emperors  and  kings  at  their  feet. 
The  author  of  "The  Pope  and  the  Council" — a  book  that 
deserves  careful  study,  not  merely  because  of  the  great  abil- 
ity it  displays,  but  because  it  is  written  by  a  Roman  Catho- 
lic, though  opposed  to  papal  infallibilitj^ — thus  speaks  of  the 
times  following  immediately  after  the  pontificates  of  Nicho- 
las I.,  Adrian  II.,  and  John  VIII. : 

"  Nearly  three  centuries  passed  before  the  seed  sown  pro- 
duced its  full  harvest.  For  almost  two  hundred  years, 
from  the  death  of  Nicholas  I.  to  the  time  of  Leo  IX.,  the 
Roman  See  was  in  a  condition  which  did  not  allow  of  any 
systematic  acquisition  and  enforcement  of  new  or  extend- 
ed rights.  For  above  sixty  years  (883-955)  the  Roman 
Church  was  enslaved  and  degraded,  while  the  Apostolic 
See  became  the  prey  and  the  plaything  of  rival  factions  of 
the  nobles,  and  for  a  long  time  of  ambitious  and  profligate 
■women.  It  was  only  renovated  for  a  brief  interval  (997- 
1003)  in  the  persons  of  Gregory  V.  and  Sylvester  II.,  by 
the  influence  of  the  Saxon  emperor.     Then  the  papacy  sunk 


THOROUGH  DEBASEMENT  AT  ROME.  399 

back  into  utter  confusion  and  moral  impotence ;  the  Tuscan 
counts  made  it  hereditary  in  their  family;  again  and  again 
dissolute  boys,  like  John  XII.  (^^)  and  Benedict  IX., (^^)  oc- 
cupied and  disgraced  the  apostolic  throne,  which  was  now 
bought  and  sold  like  a  piece  of  merchandise ;  and  at  last 
three  popes  fought  for  the  tiara,  until  the  Emperor  Henry 
III.  put  an  end  to  the  scandal  by  elevating  a  German  bishop 
to  the  see  of  Rom^''^") 

The  emperor  having,  by  virtue  of  his  temporal  sovereign- 
ty over  the  empire  (including  Italy),  obtained  this  recog- 
nized authority  over  the  popes,  they  became,  from  necessi- 
ty, more  subject  to  Teutonic  than  to  the  Frankish  influ- 
ences by  which  they  had  been  directed  from  the  time  of 
their  alliance  with  Pepin  and  Charlemagne.  The  Saxon 
and  Salique  emperors  had  by  that  time  placed  Germany  in 
the  very  front  rank  of  the  nations;  and  although  the  Ger- 
man people  were  devoted,  from  education  and  habit,  to  the 
Roman  Catholic  religion,  even  then  they  gave  occasional 
evidences  of  that  natural  love  of  freedom  which  has  since 
enabled  them  to  reach  a  condition  of  superiority  over  the 
Latin  races,  and  to  assert  principles  which  have  become  es- 

(")  John  XII.  was  made  pope  a.d.  956,  when  he  did  not  exceed  eighteen 
years  of  age,  and  some  authors  represent  him  as  only  twelve.  He  was  ex- 
ceedingly dissolute,  and  was  accused  of  incest  with  his  own  mother !  Baro- 
nius,  the  great  annalist,  calls  him  "  an  abortion." — Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  292. 

Q^)  Benedict  IX,  became  pope  a.d.  1033,  at  twelve  years  of  age.  He 
was  driven  from  Rome;  and  Sylvester  III.  was  made  pope  a.d.  1044.  Syl- 
vester was  driven  out  by  Benedict,  at  the  end  of  about  three  months,  when 
the  latter  again  mounted  the  pontifical  throne.  He  then  sold  the  tiara,  for 
fifteen  thousand  pounds  of  gold,  to  John  XX.,  who  entered  upon  the  pontif- 
icate A.D.  1045.  Benedict  soon  dissipated  the  money,  when  he  retook  the 
"chair  of  Peter"  from  John  —  thus  making  three  "vicars"  at  the  same 
time!  They  finally  agreed  to  hold  their  orgies  together,  and  "filled  Rome 
with  adultery,  robbery,  and  murder,"  and  finally  united  in  selling  the  pontif- 
icate to  Gregory  VI.,  and  concluded  the  bargain  "  on  the  very  altar  of  Christ 
itself!"  Clement  II.  succeeded  Gregory  VI.,  when  Benedict  IX.,  "at  the 
head  of  a  troop  of  brigands,"  again  seized  the  throne.  The  emperor  then 
made  Damasus  II.  pope ;  and  Benedict,  getting  rid  of  him  by  poison  in  a  few 
days,  once  more  placed  the  tiara  upon  his  brow.  The  Emperor  of  Germany 
then  put  an  end  to  these  disgraceful  scenes  by  giving  the  pontificate  to  Leo 
IX.— Ibid.,  pp.  328,  etc. 

0  "The  Pope  and  the  Council,"  by  "Janus,"  pp.  80,  81. 


400  THE  PArACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

sential  to  all  the  advancing  and  progressive  governments 
of  the  world.  The  emperors  protected  the  popes  of  their 
own  creation  with  strong  hands ;  and  but  for  this,  it  is  al- 
most certain  that  the  Church  at  Rome  would  have  been 
overwhelmed  by  Italian  corruption,  and  have  sunk  but  of 
sight. f")  After  the  Emperor  Henry  III.  had  placed.  Leo 
1X7, -a  German,  in  the  pontifical  chair,  in  preference  to  an 
Italian,  it  became  well  understood  by  all  the  aspirants  for 
that  position  that,  in  whatsoever  manner  selected,  no  pope 
could  be  recognized  as  such  without  his  consent.  He  sway- 
ed his  temporal  sceptre  over  all  parts  of  the  empire,  in- 
cluding the  city  of  Rome.  But  this  condition  of  affairs  was 
submitted  to  by  the  Italians  from  necessity,  not  choice  ;  and 
influences  designed  to  counteract  it  were  readily  contrived. 
Among  those  most  conspicuous  in  these  counter-movements 
was  the  celebrated  Hildebrand,  afterward  Pope  Gregory 
VIL,  who  employed  all  his  acknowledged  ability  in  the 
endeavor  to  persuade  even  the  German  popes  that  it  was 
beneath  their  dignity  to  accept  the  tiara  from  a  temporal 
prince.  His  ambition  led  him  to  abandon  his  cloistered 
life,  that  he  might  put  himself  into  a  position  ultimately  to 
become  pope,  and  by  these  means  he  hoped  to  lay  the  foun- 
dation of  that  system  of  measures  out  of  which  subsequent- 
ly arose,  under  his  skillful  management,  that  vast  pontifical 
power  which  he  wielded  with  so  much  success  over  emper- 
ors, kings,  and  peoples.  For  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  cent- 
ury before  he  became  pope — passing  through  the  reigns  of 
eight  popes  —  Hildebrand  exercised  a  larger  share  of  influ- 
ence at  Rome  than  any  other  man,  not  a  pope,  had  ever 
done  before.  This  commanding  position  was  owing  to  his 
great  courage,  superior  talents,  and  unbending  will  —  all  of 
which  were  employed  to  gratify  his  inordinate  ambition. 
His  leading  and  most  cherished  object  was  to  overthrow 
the  power  of  the  emperors  and  establish  the  papal  suprema- 
cy, not  only  at  Rome,  but  elsewhere  throughout  the  world. 
While  Henry  HI.  lived,  he  practiced  his  intrigues  with  great 
caution ;  but  at  his  death,  when  Henry  IV.  became  emperor, 
at  five  years  of  age,  he  took  advantage  of  his  minority,  and 

C)  "  Hist,  of  the  Popes,"  by  Ranke,  p.  23. 


POPE  GREGORY  VII.  401 

more  openly  and  daringly  avowed  his  purpose.  Although 
the  popes  Leo  IX.,  Victor  II.,  Stephen  IX.,  Nicholas  II.,  and 
Alexander  II.  all  held  their  positioi^s  with  the  consent  of 
these  emperors,  yet  none  of  them  was  able  to  conduct  the 
affairs  of  the  Church  upon  any  other  policy  than  that  dic- 
tated by  Hildebrand,  before  whom  they  were  all  dwarfed 
into  comparative  insignificance.  And  when  he  himself  be- 
came pope  as  Gregory  VII.,  he  had  laid  his  plans  so  skill- 
fully, that,  while  also  compelled  to  obtain  the  assent  of  Hen- 
ry IV.  to  his  pontifical  ordination,  he  had  very  clearly  mark- 
ed out  his  way  to  ultimate  success.  He  took  his  place  at 
once  in  the  very  front  rank  of  the  leading  men  of  his  age. 
Like  some  giant  oak  which  overshadows  all  the  lesser  trees 
of  the  forest,  he  rose  to  an  immense  height  above  all  around 
him,  and  so  impressed  all  Europe  by  the  superiority  of  his 
intellect,  that  it  required  centuries  to  get  rid  of  the  influ- 
ences of  his  pontificate.  No  man  in  history  has  received 
more  fulsome  praise  or  more  violent  censure ;  and  while 
this  is  not  the  place  to  inquire  which  of  these  he  most  de- 
served, it  can  not  be  denied  that  among  all  his  other  quali- 
ties none  distinguished  him  so  much  as  his  ambition  —  his 
desire  to  make  the  papacy  the  governing  and  controlling 
power  of  the  whole  world,  in  both  spiritual  and  temporal 
affairs.  In  this  aspect  of  his  character  alone  is  it  now  pro- 
posed to  view  him. 

Gregory  VII.  commenced  his  pontificate  by  asserting  the 
right  to  dispose  of  kingdoms,  in  imitation  of  the  example  set 
by  Pope  Gregory  L,  nearly  four  hundred  years  before.  He 
granted  to  the  Count  of  Champagne,  in  consideration  of 
large  sums  of  money,  the  right  to  conquer  the  kingdom  of 
Arragon ;  and  authorized  him  and  other  lords  to  seize  upon 
the  territory  held  by  the  Saracens  and  erect  it  into  an  in- 
dependent kingdom,  subordinate  to  the  papacy.  He  quar- 
reled with  Philip,  King  of  France,  and  threatened  him  with 
anathema  if  he  refused  to  obey  him.  He  concerted  meas- 
ures to  force  all  the  bishops  and  priests  of  the  Church  to  the 
practice  of  celibacy,  so  that,  separated  from  all  family  and 
domestic  influences,  they  might  constitute  a  great  army, 
thoroughly  and  entirely  devoted  to  the  papacy.  He  roused 
up  all  the  superstitious  populations  of  Europe  to  undertake 

26 


402  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

a  holy  war,  by  marching  to  Palestine  and  wresting  it  from 
the  hands  of  the  infidel ;  and  failed  to  execute  this  purpose 
only  because  he  feared  the  power  of  the  Emperor  of  Ger- 
many, who  opposed  it.  He  took  from  the  King  of  France 
the  power  of  investing  bishops,  and  excommunicated  him 
for  his  resistance  to  his  will.  He  directed  the  bishops  of 
France  to  put  the  whole  kingdom  under  interdict,  and  to  tell 
the  king,  if  he  persisted  in  his  refusal  to  obey  him,  that "  the 
thunders  of  St.  Peter  will  strike  him,  as  God  before  struck 
Satan."  He  summoned  Henry  IV.  to  appear  before  a  coun- 
cil in  Rome,  under  penalty  of  anathema,  in  case  of  disobedi- 
ence ;  and  when  Henry  threatened  him  in  turn,  he  issued  his 
bull  of  excommunication  against  him  —  not  because  of  his 
want  of  devotion  to  the  faith  of  the  Church,  but  on  account 
of  their  difierences  upon  questions  merely  temporal.  In 
this  celebrated  bull  he  appealed  to  the  "holy  mother  of 
God,  St.  Paul,  and  all  the  saints  in  heaven,"  to  witness  his 
sincerity,  and  then  declared :  "  But  since  I  have  reached  this 
throne  by  your  grace,  I  believe  that  it  is  your  will  that 
Christian  people  should  obey  me,  by  virtue  of  the  power 
which  you  [St.  Peter]  have  transmitted  to  me  of  binding  and 
loosing  in  heaven  and  on  earth.  Thus,  for  the  safety  of  the 
Church,  and  in  the  name  of  God  all-powerful,  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  I  prohibit  Henry,  who  by  reason  of 
an  unheard-of  pride  has  elevated  himself  against  us,  from 
governing  the  kingdoms  of  Germany  and  Italy.  I  free  all 
Christians  from  the  oaths  which  they  have  taken  to  him, 
and  I  prohibit  all  from  serving  him  as  king;  for  he  who 
would  oppose  our  authority  deserves  to  lose  his  crown,  his 
liberty,  and  his  life.  I  burden  Henry,  then,  with  anathema 
and  malediction ;  I  devote  him  to  the  execration  of  men, 
and  I  deliver  up  his  soul  to  Satan,  in  order  that  the  people 
may  know  that  the  sovereign  pontiff  is  the  rock  upon  which 
the  Son  of  the  living  God  has  built  his  Church,  and  that  the 
gates  of  hell  shall  never  prevail  against  it."(''^) 

Gregory,  far  too  bold  for  disguise,  does  not  here  pretend, 
as  do  many  of  the  modern  papists,  that  his  right  to  interfere 

(")  Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  370;   "See  of  Rome  in  the  Middle  Ages,"  by 
Reichel,  p.  208  ;   "Latin  Christianity,"  by  Milman,  vol.  iii.,  pp.  437,  438. 


THE  CLAIM  OE  DIVINE  POWER.  403 

in  the  domestic  affairs  of  Germany,  so  far  as  to  dethrone  the 
emperor  and  release  all  his  subjects  from  their  allegiance 
to  him,  was  derived  from  the  consent  of  the  nations  or  from 
any  human  authority.  He  placed  it  upon  the  ground  where 
the  present  pope  and  all  his  hierarchy  understand  it  to  rest ; 
that  is,  upon  the  power  to  bind  and  loose — the  power  of  the 
keys — as  derived  directly  from  God.  In  this  sense  he  re- 
garded it  as  a  power  sufficiently  great  and  omnipotent  to 
absorb  all  other  power  upon  earth,  by  the  possession  of 
which,  as  the  successor  of  Peter,  he  had  the  right  to  make 
and  unmake  kings,  to  construct  and  reconstruct  govern- 
ments, to  wrest  from  those  who  disobeyed  him  all  the  terri- 
tory held  by  them,  and  to  bestow  it  upon  those  who  would 
hold  it  in  subjection  to  his  authority,  and  to  do  any  and  ev- 
ery thing,  no  matter  what,  necessary  to  put  the  whole  world 
under  his  feet.  He  had  deliberately  formed  the  purpose  of 
creating  an  absolute  and  universal  monarchy  in  the  Church, 
and  a  no  less  extensive  and  despotic  civil  monarchy  which 
should  overshadow  all  existing  nations,  and  had  the  courage 
to  declare  that  he  was  acting  in  obedience  to  the  commands 
of  God,  who  had  given  him,  as  his  earthly  vicar,  full  power 
over  all  mankind,  so  that  he  could  open  or  close  the  gates 
of  heaven  or  of  hell  to  them  at  his  pleasure.  He  desired  to 
bind  all  the  people  of  every  nation  by  a  bond  of  allegiance 
to  the  Roman  pontiffs,  as  the  successors  of  Peter,  so  that 
all  the  contests  in  which  nations  or  men  should  become  in- 
volved should  be  settled  at  Rome,  where  the  sole  power  of 
arbitrament  and  decision  should  exist.  (")  And  the  ground 
upon  which  he  rested  this  enormous  claim  of  authority 
shows  that  he  had  no  other  idea  in  his  mind  than  that  it 
rightfully  belonged  to  him  as  the  head  of  the  Roman  Cath- 
olic Church.  He  placed  his  right  to  command  Philip  of 
France  expressly  upon  the  ground  that  both  that  country 
and  the  soul  of  the  king  "  were  under  the  dominion  of  St. 
Peter,"  by  virtue  of  his  right  "  to  bind  and  loose,  in  heaven 
and  upon  earth,"  well  knowing,  as  he  did,  that  the  popes 
were  indebted  for  all  their  dignity  and  dominion  to  the 
French  princes,  Pepin,  Charlemagne,  and  their  successors. 

'  O  Maclaine's  Mosheim,  part  ii.,  ch.  ii.,  p.  269. 


404  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

He  pretended  that  Saxony  was  held  as  a  fief  in  subjection 
to  the  papacy,  because  Charlemagne  had  given  it  as  a  pious 
offering  to  St.  Peter.  He  maintained  that  Spain  was  the 
property  of  the  Apostolic  See ;  and  that  he  had  the  right,  by 
virtue  of  divine  appointment,  to  exact  homage  of  the  Em- 
peror of  Germany,  and  the  Kings  of  England,  Hungary,  Den- 
mark, Poland,  Russia,  and  all  the  powers  and  principalities 
of  Europe,  and  to  release  their  subjects  from  their  allegiance 
in  case  of  refusal,  because  they  were  all  held  in  the  same 
right.  (")  Therefore,  when  he  found  that  there  were  many 
refractory  bishops  who  were  unwilling  to  be  drawn  away 
from  the  support  of  their  own  kings,  he  endeavored  to  incite 
them  to  disobedience  and  revolt,  by  such  letters  as  the  fol- 
lowing, which  he  addressed  to  the  Bishop  of  Metz: 

"As  for  those  who  maintain  that  kings  can  not  be  legiti- 
mately deposed  by  popes,  I  refer  them  to  the  words  and  the 
example  of  the  fathers;  and  they  will  learn  that  St.  Peter 
said,  *  Be  ye  always  ready  to  punish  the  guilty,  whatever 
their  rank.'  Let  them  consider  the  motives  which  induced 
Pope  Zachary  to  depose  King  Childeric,  and  to  free  all  the 
Franks  from  their  oath  of  fidelity.  Let  them  learn  that  St. 
Gregory  in  his  Decretals  [a.d.  590-604]  not  only  excommu- 
nicated the  lords  and  kings  who  opposed  the  execution  of 
his  orders,  but  that  he  even  deprived  them  of  their  power. 
Let  them  not  forget  that  St.  Ambrose  himself  drove  from 
the  temple  the  Emperor  Theodosius,  calling  him  a  profane 
man,  sacrilegious,  and  a  murderer. 

"Perhaps  these  miserable  slaves  of  kings  would  maintain 
that  God,  when  he  said  to  St.  Peter,  'Feed  my  lambs,'  except- 
ed princes ;  but  we  will  demonstrate  that  Christ,  in  giving 
to  the  apostle  power  to  bind  and  loose  men,  excepted  no  one. 
The  Holy  See  has  absolute  power  over  all  spiritual  things : 
why  should  it  not  also  rule  temporal  affairs?  God  reigns 
in  the  heavens ;  Ms  vicar  should  reign  over  all  the  earth. 
These  senseless  wretches,  however,  maintain  that  the  royal 
is  above  the  episcopal  dignity.  Are  they,  then,  ignorant 
that  the  name  of  king  was  invented  by  human  pride,  and 
that  the  title  of  bishop  was  instituted  by  Christ?     St.  Am- 

(")  Maclaine's  Mosheim,  part  ii.,  chap,  ii.,  p.  270.  ^ 


USURPATION  JUSTIFIED  BY  EXAMPLE.  405 

brose  affirms  that  the  episcopate  is  superior  to  royalty,  as 
gold  is  superior  to  a  viler  metal. "(") 

Here  we  have  an  example  of  the  manner  in  which  prece- 
dent may  be  made  an  apology  for  the  most  flagrant  usurpa- 
tion. Without  pretense  of  authority  for  the  construction 
he  gave  to  the  words  of  Christ  when  he  conferred  the  pow- 
er to  bind  and  loose  upon  the  apostles,  except  that  derived 
from  the  examples  of  Popes  Gregory  I.  and  Zachary,  the 
bold  ambition  of  Gregory  VII.  prompted  him  to  declare 
that  this  was  sufficient  for  his  purpose.  He  reached  this  con- 
clusion manifestly  because  he  regarded  all  popes,  both  good 
and  bad,  as  infallible,  and  therefore  incapable  of  error.  In 
the  same  way  the  whole  system  of  papal  supremacy  is  built 
up:  one  pope  promng  the  existence  of  his  enormous  spiritual 
a7id  temporal  power  by  another!  Thus,  after  the  pontificate 
of  Gregory  VII.  had  ended,  Alexander  III.  added  him  to  the 
list  of  examples ;  and  then  Innocent  HI.  added  Alexander ; 
and  Boniface  VHI.  added  Innocent;  and  now,  in  the  nine- 
teenth century,  and  in  the  face  of  all  its  progress,  when  the 
list  is  brought  down  to  Pius  IX.,  he  invokes,  in  support  of 
the  doctrines  of  the  Encyclical  and  Syllabus  of  1864,  the  ex- 
amples of  all  his  "illustrious  predecessors  !" 

Gregory  VII.  carried  his  interference  in  the  affairs  of  Ger- 
many further  than  merely  issuing  papal  bulls  against  Henry 
IV.  He  succeeded  in  stirring  up  revolt  against  him  among 
the  German  nobles,  who  elevated  Rudolph,  Duke  ofSuabia, 
to  the  imperial  throne,  in  opposition  to  Henry.  The  pope 
issued  a  decree  in  favor  of  Rudolph,  again  declaring  Henry 
dispossessed  of  the  crown,  invoking  upon  his  head  the  thun- 
ders of  heaven,  and  declaring  Rudolph  "  the  lawful  king  of 
the  Teutonic  States."  Then,  addressing  St.  Peter  and  St. 
Paul,  he  said : 

"  Now,  blessed  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul,  let  the  world  know, 
by  giving  victory  to  Rudolph,  that  you  can  bind  and  loose 
in  heaven ;  that  you  can  give  or  take  away  empires,  king- 
doms, principalities,  duchies,  marquisates,  countships,  and 
the  goods  of  all  men ;  finally,  that  you  take  from  the  un- 


C)  Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  371 ;  Milman's  "Latin  Christianity," vol.  iii.,  p. 
445. 


406  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

worthy  and  bestow  on  the  good,  the  pontificate,  primacies, 
archbishoprics,  and  bishoprics.  Let  the  people  know  that 
you  judge  spiritual  things,  and  that  you  have  an  absolute 
power  over  temporal  afiairs ;  that  you  can  curb  the  demons 
who  are  the  counselors  of  princes,  and  annihilate  kings  and 
the  powerful  of  the  earth.  Display,  then,  your  greatness 
and  your  power,  and  let  the  world  now  tremble  before  the 
redoubtable  orders  of  your  Church.  Cause  especially  the 
sword  of  your  justice  promptly  to  strike  the  head  of  the 
criminal  Henry,  in  order  that  all  Christians  may  learn  that 
he  has  been  stricken  by  your  will."(") 

Notwithstanding  this  solemn  appeal  to  Heaven — this  im- 
pious invocation  of  the  apostles  in  favor  of  his  political  in- 
trigues in  Germany — the  prayer  of  the  pope  was  not  heard, 
the  empire  of  Germany  was  not  taken  from  its  legitimate 
possessor,  and  the  world  did  not  tremble  before  the  thun- 
ders of  the  Vatican  !  The  pride  of  Henry,  which  had  been 
sorely  wounded  by  his  former  humiliation  by  Gregory,  be- 
came excited ;  and  the  slumbering  energies  of  the  German 
people  became  aroused  at  this  insolent  attempt  to  place 
them  at  the  feet  of  the  papacy.  Henry  raised  a  large 
army,  overthrew  Rudolph  —  who  lost  his  life  in  battle  — 
marched  to  Rome,  convened  a  council  of  German  ecclesi- 
astics and  nobles,  deposed  Gregory,  and  placed  the  Metro- 
politan of  Ravenna  upon  the  pontifical  throne,  under  the 
name  of  Clement  HI.(")  After  many  varying  fortunes, 
Gregory  was  enabled  to  drive  the  anti  -  pope  Clement 
from  the  throne,  but  he  soon  sunk  under  the  tremendous 
load  which  pressed  upon  him,  and  in  the  year  1085  died, 
uttering  these  words:  "No,  my  hatred  is  implacable.  I 
curse  the  pretended  Emperor  Henry,  the  anti -pope  Gui- 
bert,  and  the  reprobates  who  sustain  them.  I  absolve  and 
bless  the  simple  who  believe  that  a  pope  has  power  to  bind 
and  loose.''''(") 

One  other  explanation  by  Gregory  VH.  of  the  principles 
upon  which  he  acted  will  enable  the  reader  to  form  a  just 


C^)  Corraenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  375. 

C')  Ibid.  ;  "  Hist,  of  the  Catholic  Church,"  by  Noethen,  p.  340. 

(")  Corraenin,  vol.  I,  p.  377. 


WHATEVER  THE  POPE  COMMANDS  IS  RIGHT.       407 

appreciation  of  his  character  and  ambition.  It  is  given  by 
Cormenin  in  these  words : 

"  '  God  is  a  spirit,'  says  Gregory ;  '  he  rules  matter ;  thus 
the  spiritual  is  above  the  temjjoral  power.  The  pope  is  the 
representative  of  God  on  earth  ;  he  should,  then,  govern  the 
world.  To  him  alone  pertain  infallibility  and  universali- 
ty ;  all  men  are  submitted  to  his  laws,  and  he  can  only  be 
judged  by  God;  he  ought  to  wear  imperial  ornaments; 
people  and  kings  should  kiss  his  feet ;  Christians  are  irrev- 
ocably submitted  to  his  orders;  thei/  should  murder  their 
princes,  fathers,  and  children  if  he  commands  it/  no  council 
can  be  declared  universal  without  the  orders  of  the  pope; 
no  book  can  be  received  as  canonical  without  his  authori- 
ty ;  finally,  no  good  or  evil  exists  but  in  what  he  has  con- 
demned or  approved.'" C^**) 

Thus  understanding  the  principles  of  this  great  pope,  we 
are  the  better  enabled  to  press  our  inquiries  one  step  fur- 
ther, in  order  to  understand  the  source  of  these  principles, 
and  the  method  adopted  by  him  to  justify  and  enforce  them. 
And  here,  again,  the  exhaustive  work  of  "Janus"  comes  to 
our  assistance.     This  author  says : 

"Gregory  collected  about  him  by  degrees  the  right  men 
for  elaborating  his  system  of  Church  law.  Anselm  of  Luc- 
ca, nephew  of  Pope  Alexander  II.,  compiled  the  most  im- 
portant and  comprehensive  work,  at  his  command,  between 
1080  and  1086.  Anselm  may  be  called  the  founder  of  the 
new  Gregorian  system  of  Church  law,  first,  by  extracting 
and  putting  into  convenient  working  shape  every  thing  in 
the  Isidorian  forgeries  serviceable  for  the  papal  absolutism ; 
next,  by  altering  the  law  of  the  Church,  through  a  tissue  of 
fresh  inventions  and  interpolations,  in  accordance  with  the 
requirements  of  his  party  and  tlie  stand -point  of  Gregory. 
Then  came  Deusdedit,  whom  Gregory  made  a  cardinal,  with 
some  more  inventions.  At  the  same  time  Bonizo  compiled 
his  work,  the  main  object  of  which  was  to  exalt  the  papal 
prerogatives.  The  forty  propositions  or  titles  of  this  part 
of  his  work  correspond  entirely  to  Gregory's  '  Dictatus,'  and 
the  materials  supplied  by  Anselm  and  Deusdedit.''^^^) 

O  Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  377.  O  "  Janus,"  pp.  82,  83. 


408  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

This  same  author  then  goes  on  to  show  how,  by  these  old 
and  new  forgeries,  all  based  npon  the  pseudo-Isidorian  De- 
cretals, authority  was  found  to  justify  every  claim  set  up  by 
the  pope ;  how  the  pretended  decrees  of  the  popes  were  put 
in  the  place  of  the  canons  of  councils,  to  supply  all  existing 
deficiencies;  how  they  were  made  to  justify  the  claim  of 
Gregory  of  the  right  to  give  or  take  away  kingdoms  at  his 
pleasure;  how  the  bishops  were  made  gods,  so  that  no  hu- 
man tribunal  could  judge  them ;  how  even  the  lower  cler- 
gy were  made  higher  and  more  powerful  than  secular  mon- 
archs  ;  and  how  Deusdedit,  one  of  the  forgers,  falsely  attrib- 
uted to  Boniface,  the  Apostle  of  Germany,  the  abominable 
sentiment  that,  "  Even  if  a  pope  is  so  bad  that  he  drags 
down  whole  nations  to  hell  with  him  in  troops,  nobody  can 
rebuke  Mm;  for  he  who  judges  all  can  be  judged  of  no 
man  :  the  only  exception  is  in  case  of  his  swerving  from 
the  faith."n 

The  main  object  of  Gregory,  and  of  all  these  forgeries, 
was  to  bring  the  Church  to  the  point  of  recognizing  the 
doctrine  of  papal  infallibility  as  absolutely  necessary  to  sal- 
vation. To  accomplish  this  it  was  indispensable  that  the 
pope  should,  individually  and  personally,  absorb  all  the  pow- 
ers of  the  Church,  so  that  his  decrees  should  become  the  law 
for  the  government  of  all  Christians,  without  the  aid  or  con- 
sent of  either  general  or  provincial  councils.  In  the  earlier 
ages  general  councils  had  always  been  assembled  whenever 
it  was  necessary  to  settle  questions  of  faith  or  discipline,  and 
the  canon  law  of  the  Church  was  rightfully  composed  only 
of  their  enactments.  Previous  to  the  pontificate  of  Gregory 
there  had  been  eight  of  these.  The  Council  of  Nice,  in  the 
year  325,  condemned  Arianism.  The  first  of  Constantinople, 
in  381,  condemned  the  heresy  of  Macedonius.  The  Council 
of  Ephesus,  in  431,  condemned  the  heresy  of  Nestorius.  The 
Council  of  Chalcedon,  in  451,  condemned  the  heresy  of  Eu- 
tyches.  The  second  of  Constantinople,  in  553,  acted  upon 
the  disagreements  between  the  Eastern  and  Western  Chris- 
tians. The  third  of  Constantinople,  in  682,  condemned  the 
Monothelite  heresy.     The  second  Council  of  Nice,  in  757, 

n  "Janus," p.  02. 


ABSOLUTISM  ASSERTED  BY  GREGORY  VII.  409 

condemned  the  Iconoclast  heresy.  And  the  fourth  Council 
of  Constantinople,  in  869,  deposed  the  Patriarch  Photius,  and 
restored  Ignatius  to  his  see.  None  of  these  councils  would 
have  been  held,  or  would  have  been  necessary,  if  the  doc- 
trine of  papal  infallibility  had  prevailed  in  the  apostolic 
times,  or  for  centuries  afterward.  But  Gregory  was  not 
satisfied  with  this  old  order  of  things — with  the  principles 
which  prevailed  before  the  Church  of  Rome  was  contami- 
nated by  the  influence  of  papal  ambition.  Like  those  secu- 
lar despots  who  governed  their  nations  by  laws  of  their  own 
creation,  without  asking  the  assent  of  lords,  nobles,  or  peo- 
ple, he  resolved  upon  governing  the  Church  without  the 
consent  of  bishops,  clergy,  or  laymen  ;  in  other  words,  to 
put  himself  in  the  place  of  God,  as  the  sole  dispenser  of  all 
spiritual  and  temporal  authority.  He  loved  absolutism  be- 
cause it  gave  him  power,  and  he  exercised  power  so  as  to 
make  papal  absolutism  complete  and  universal.  Therefore, 
he  was  the  first  pope  who  attempted  the  degradation  of 
civil  potentates,  the  first  who  "  lifted  the  sacerdotal  lance 
against  the  royal  diadem."(^')  And  it  should  excite  no  sur- 
prise when  we  find  him  appealing  "  to  the  first  forged  docu- 
ment that  came  to  hand  as  a  solid  proof  "(^'')  of  the  lawful- 
ness of  his  usurpations;  or  that  he  set  up  the  false  pretense 
that  Charlemagne  had  made  all  France  and  Saxony  tribu- 
tary to  the  Holy  See,  and  declared  that  there  were  docu- 
ments in  proof  of  it  preserved  in  the  archives  of  St.  Pe- 
ter's !(^'')  Great  as  he  was,  he  had  that  bad  ambition  which 
has  so  often  left  its  blighting  influence  upon  the  world,  and 
which  prompts  its  possessor  to  justify  the  means  by  the  end 
in  view.  By  the  impious  employment  of  sacred  things  to 
bring  about  mere  temporal  results,  he  left  an  example  the 
influence  of  which  has  not  yet  died  away  at  Rome.  And,  if 
his  pontificate  may  yet  be  justly  referred  to  as  one  of  ex- 
ceeding brilliancy  and  splendor,  and  if  he  may  be  pointed 
out  as  one  of  the  cherished  saints  of  the  Church,  to  be  loved 
and  imitated  by  the  faithful,  the  "  truth  of  history  "  assigns 
this  position  to  him  only  because  the  world  judges  by  re- 

C)  "  Var.  of  Popery,"  by  Edgar,  p.  217.  C)  "Janus,"  p.  114. 

O  Ibid. 


410  I'HE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

suits,  not  details.  If  we  look  only  at  the  lustre  which  rest- 
ed upon  the  brow  of  the  pagan  Caesar,  we  are  dazzled  by  its 
splendor;  yet  if  we  pause  to  inquire  how  he  won  the  dia- 
dem, we  almost  hear  the  groans  of  the  multitude  of  victims 
who  w^ere  crushed  beneath  his  heel.  So,  if  we  search  accu- 
rately the  history  of  this  papal  Caesar,  we  shall  find  him 
reaching  his  lofty  eminence  by  trampling  the  most  holy  and 
sacred  things  under  his  feet,  by  giving  w^ay  to  the  prompt- 
ings of  an  unholy  and  unjust  ambition,  and  by  setting  such 
an  example  as  led  to  the  corruption  of  subsequent  popes, 
and  the  demoralization  of  nearly  the  entire  clergy. 

The  successors  of  Gregory  VII.  not  only  adopted  his  prin- 
ciples, but  followed  his  example,  so  far  as  they  were  per- 
mitted by  surrounding  circumstances  to  do  so.  Urban  II. 
(1088-1099)  incited  a  crusade  against  the  infidels  in  Pales- 
tine by  holding  out  "  the  spoils"  of  victory  as  an  induce- 
ment. Calixtus  11.  (1118-1124)  gave  to  a  monk  the  author- 
ity to  subjugate  the  Church  of  England  to  the  court  of 
Rome,  and  of  re-establishing  his  authority  in  France.  In- 
nocent II.  (1130-1143)  hurled  his  anathemas  at  the  head  of 
Arnold  of  Brescia  because  he  preached  against  the  effemi- 
nate and  corrupt  lives  of  the  priests  and  monks.  Adrian 
IV.  (1154-1159)  excommunicated  the  King  of  Sicily,  and 
granted  the  crown  of  Ireland  to  the  King  of  England. (^*) 

(^*)  A  feeble  effort  has  been  recently  made  to  break  the  force  of  this  im- 
portant fact  by  a  flat  denial.  The  Rev.  Father  Burke,  an  Irish  priest  of 
great  eloquence,  in  reply  to  a  statement  made  by  Mr.  Froude,  solemnly  and 
fearlessly  asserts  "  that  Pope  Adrian  never  issued  any  such  document,"  basing 
this  positive  statement  mainly  upon  the  ground  that  it  was  not  heard  of  until 
about  twenty  years  after  its  alleged  date. — Ireland's  Case  stated,  in  Reply  to 
Mr.  Froude,  by  Burke,  lect.  i.,  p.  36.  Bold  afiirmation  of  this  sort  may 
serve  the  purpose  of  a  popular  lecture,  especially  when  delivered  to  an  ex- 
cited and  sympathizing  'audience,  but  it  amounts  to  very  little  against  the 
weight  of  historic  evidence.  To  say  nothing  of  the  numerous  Protestant  au- 
thorities in  support  of  this  grant,  it  is  well  attested  by  Roman  Catholic  histo- 
rians. Lingard  admits  it,  and  states  that  it  was  read  to  a  synod  of  Irish 
bishops,  and  afterward  caused  Roderic,  King  of  Connaught,  to  hold  his 
crown  under  the  English  king  as  long  as  he  was  foithful  to  him  and  paid 
tribute.  He  also  shows  that,  in  1175,  this  grant  was  confirmed  by  Pope  Al- 
exander III.,  which  last  grant  Father  Burke  also  tries  to  prove  a  forgery. — 
History  of  England,  by  Lingard,  vol.  ii.,  p.  94,  The  Rev.  Father  The'baud, 
a  Jesuit,  is  the  author  of  a  very  instructive  work,  published  in  1878,  entitled 


THE  GRATIAN  DECRETALS.  411 

AH  these  things  were  done  in  the  name  of  religion,  by  its 
perversion  to  uses  never  contemplated  by  Christ  or  the 
apostles.  The  character  of  St.  Peter  was  wholly  changed ; 
instead  of  being  a  minister  of  peace  and  love,  sent  forth 
without  staff  or  scrip  to  preach  the  Gospel,  he  was  trans- 
formed into  a  temporal  prince,  ambitiously  striving  after  the 
conquest  and  subjugation  of  the  world  ! 

The  Gratian  Decretals  made  their  appearance  about  the 
middle  of  the  twelfth  century.  ('')  These  were  issued  from 
Bologna,  then  renowned  for  having  the  best  law  school  in 
Europe,  and  were  put  forth  under  the  sanction  of  the  high- 
est ecclesiastical  authority.  They  too,  like  their  predeces- 
sors, were  full  of  forgeries  —  all  designed  to  promote  the 
cause  of  papal  absolutism.     *'  Janus  "  says  of  them : 

"  In  this  work  the  Isidorian  forgeries  were  combined  with 
those  of  the  Gregorian  writers,  Deusdedit,  Anselm,  Gregory 
of  Pavia,  and  with  Gratian's  own  additions.  His  work  dis- 
placed all  the  older  collections  of  canon  law,  and  became 
the  manual  and  repertory,  not  for  canonists  only,  but  for 
the  scholastic  theologians,  who,  for  the  most  part,  derived 
all  their  knowledge  of  fathers  and  councils  from  it.  No 
book  has  ever  come  near  it  in  its  influence  in  the  Church, 
although  there  is  scarcely  another  so  choke-full  of  gross  er- 
rors, both  intentional  and  unintentional All  these  fab- 

"The  Irish  Race  in  the  Past  and  the  Present,"  in  which  he  speaks  of  the 
grant  of  Adrian  without  denying  it.  He  says  it  was  not  known  to  Pope 
Clement  III.  (1187-1191).  He  admits  that  when  Henry  II.  sent  his  army 
into  Ireland,  the  Irish  people  or  clans  and  their  chieftains  acknowledged  his 
authority,  but  thinks  they  did  not  do  it  in  the  feudal  sense,  claiming  for  them, 
what  is  probably  true,  that  their  pledge  "to  do  homage  "to  the  English  king 
did  not  deprive  them  of  their  right  to  live  in  the  Pale  if  they  chose,  and  to 
be  governed  by  the  Brehon  law  (pp.  138-145).  A  "History  of  Ireland" 
was  published  only  a  few  years  ago  (1868),  written  by  Miss  M.  F.  Cusack, 
"  nun  of  Kenmare,"  in  which  the  existence  of  Adrian's  grant  is  spoken  of  as 
an  undoubted  fact.  It  is  said  that  it  was  made  by  the  pope  because  he  was 
an  Englishman.  The  author  subjoins  the  original  bull  in  a  note,  wherein  she 
says,  "There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  of  the  authenticity  of  this  docu- 
ment." She  further  says  that  it  was  published  by  Baronius,  from  the  "Codex 
Vaticanus,"  and  annexed  to  a  brief  addressed  by  Pope  John  XXII.  (1316- 
1334)  to  Edward  II. ;  also  that  John  of  Salisbury  states  in  his  "  Metalogicus" 
that  he  obtained  the  bull  from  Adrian  (p.  275,  n.  6). 
(^^)"  Janus,  "p.  115. 


412  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

rications — the  rich  harvest  of  three  centuries  —  Gratian  in- 
serted, in  good  faith,  into  his  collection ;  but  he  also  added, 
knowingly  and  deliberately,  a  number  of  fresh  corruptions, 
all  in  the  spirit  and  interest  of  the  papal  system.''^') 

A  brief  enumeration  of  a  few  of  the  principles,  which  by 
these  new  forgeries  of  Gratian  became  a  part  of  the  canon 
law  of  the  Roman  Church,  will  serve  to  illustrate  still  fur- 
ther the  manner  in  which  the  papal  system  has  grown.  A 
system  of  religious  persecution  was  elaborated.  Protection 
was  given  by  the  Church  to  homicides  and  murderers,  when 
the  acts  were  done  in  behalf  of  the  papal  cause.  It  was 
made  not  only  lawful,  but  a  duty,  to  "  constrain  men  to 
goodness,  and  therefore  to  faith,  and  to  what  was  then  reck- 
oned matter  of  faith,  by  all  means  of  physical  compulsion, 
and  particularly  to  torture  and  execute  heretics,  and  con- 
fiscate their  property."  It  was  provided  that  whosoever 
should  kill  an  excommunicated  person  out  of  zeal  to  the 
Church  was  by  no  means  a  murderer;  because  all  who  are 
declared  "  bad  "  by  the  Church  authorities  "  are  not  only  to 
be  scourged,  but  executed."  All  who  "  dared  to  disobey  a 
papal  command,  or  speak  against  a  papal  decision  or  doc- 
trine," were  made  heretics.  The  pope  was  placed  upon  an 
equality  wdth  Christ;  these  Decretals  declaring  that,  "as 
Christ  submitted  to  the  law  on  earth,  though  in  truth  he 
was  its  Lord,  so  the  pope  is  high  above  all  laws  of  the  Church, 
and  can  dispose  of  them  as  he  will,  shice  they  derive  all  their 
force  from  him  alone^  i^"") 

If  the  reader  has  kept  in  mind  the  principles  embodied  in 
the  false  Isidorian  Decretals,  as  well  as  those  of  the  Grego- 
rian code,  and  will  add  to  them  these  equally  flagrant  for- 
geries of  Gratian,  he  will  be  able  to  comprehend  what  was 
meant  by  the  canon  law  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
about  the  middle  of  the  twelfth  century,  and  what  is  still 
meant  by  it!  It  took  more  than  a  thousand  years,  from 
the  close  of  the  apostolic  era,  for  these  principles  to  grow 
and  expand  into  the  wonderful  proportions  they  had  then 
acquired;  and  even  then  the  popes  were  indebted  to  the 
basest  and  most  palpable  forgeries  for  their  existence. 

C)  "  Janus,"  p.  116.  Q')  Ibid.,  pp.  119-121. 


ARNOLD  OF  BRESCIA  BURNED  TO  DEATH.     413 

Adrian  lY.  became  pope  in  the  year  1154.  When  Fred- 
erick Barbarossa,  the  Emperor  of  Germany,  consented  to  be 
crowned  by  the  pope,  he  made  a  concession  to  the  papal  au- 
thority which  greatly  flattered  the  pride  and  aroused  the 
ambition  of  Adrian.  But,  besides  his  cession  of  Ireland  to 
England,  his  pontificate  was  distinguished  by  nothing  else 
so  much  as  the  conviction  and  execution  of  Arnold  of  Bres- 
cia, by  burning,  on  account  of  his  denunciation  of  the  cor- 
ruptions of  the  Roman  priesthood.  (^*')  The  forged  Decretals 
were  just  beginning  to  bear  fresh  fruits  —  most  palatable  to 
the  papal  taste,  because  it  was  considered  necessary  to  the 
further  and  successful  growth  of  the  papacy  that  every 
voice,  like  that  of  Arnold's,  which  cried  out  for  reform 
should  be  hushed,  and  that  every  arm  raised  against  papal 
usurpation  should  be  stricken  down. 

Alexander  III.  was  his  immediate  successor  —  equally 
ambitious,  and  far  more  bold  and  daring.  At  the  time  of 
his  election  an  anti-pope  was  also  elected,  who  took  the 
name  of  Victor  IV. — the  pontificate  having  become  the  ob- 
ject of  most  disgraceful  struggles  between  rival  aspirants. 
Frederick  Barbarossa  was  at  that  time  prosecuting  a  war 
in  Lombard y,  and  Alexander  III.  commanded  him  not  to 
press  his  conquests  any  further,  unless  he  desired  to  incur 
the  censures  of  the  Church.  Frederick  paid  no  attention  to 
these  threats,  but  summoned  both  Alexander  and  Victor  to 
appear  before  a  council  at  Pavia,  where  it  was  proposed  to 
decide  which  of  them  was  the  rightful  claimant  of  the  tia- 
ra. Alexander  treated  the  order  of  the  emperor  with  as 
much  disdain  as  his  own  had  received,  and  both  anathema- 
tized and  excommunicated  Frederick,  declaring  that  ^Hhe 
power  of  the  popes  is  superior  to  that  of  princes.'^''  The 
council,  however,  assembled  and  decided  in  favor  of  Victor 
IV.,  who  was  crowned  at  Pavia,  and  recognized  as  pope  by 
the  bishops  and  clergy  of  Germany  and  Lombardy.     Alex- 

Q^)  Arnold  was  a  republican,  and  opposed  the  whole  hierarchical  system, 
including  the  temporal  power  of  the  pope.  He  was  condemned  to  silence 
by  a  council  at  Rome,  and  banished ;  but  was  finally  seized  and  carried 
back  to  Rome,  where,  "by  the  judgment  of  the  clergy,"  he  was  "executed 
by  the  officer  of  the  pope." — Milman's  Latin  Christianity,  vol.  iv.,  pp.  270, 
271. 


414  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

ander  now  excommunicated  Frederick  the  second  time,  and 
declared  all  his  subjects  freed  from  their  oath  of  fidelity  to 
him.  This,  like  his  former  excommunication,  was  without 
effect  upon  the  emperor,  but  it  surrounded  Alexander  with 
embarrassments  which  would  have  crushed  a  less  coura- 
geous man.  With  the  Emperor  of  Germany,  and  the  kings 
of  Denmark,  Norway,  Sweden,  and  Lombardy  recognizing 
Victor  as  the  pope,  and  without  any  other  support  than  the 
doubtful  and  hesitating  alliance  of  the  kings  of  France  and 
England,  Alexander  III.  bore  up  against  the  pressure  with 
wonderful  ability.  Though  unable  to  reach  the  papal  pal- 
ace in  Rome,  he  was,  nevertheless,  "  every  inch  a  king"  — 
bold,  firm,  and  defiant.  Such  persistent  courage  rarely  fails 
in  the  accomplishment  of  its  object,  whether  good  or  bad. 
At  the  death  of  Victor,  which  occurred  in  the  year  1164, 
after  the  schism  had  lasted  about  five  years,  the  whole  as- 
pect of  affairs  underwent  a  change.  The  exactions  of  Fred- 
erick in  Lombardy  had  caused  a  formidable  party  to  be 
formed  against  him  there,  and  Alexander,  taking  advantage 
of  the  disaffection,  was  enabled,  by  the  use  of  money,  to  buy 
his  way  into  the  city  of  Rome.  Seated  now  upon  the  chair 
of  Peter,  and  without  a  rival,  he  was  able  to  turn  his  atten- 
tion to  the  difficulties  between  the  Holy  See  and  the  King 
of  England,  growing  out  of  the  exertions  of  Becket,  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury,  to  bring  that  country  into  complete 
obedience  to  Rome.  This  he  did  so  effectually,  that  in  a 
short  time  he  had  the  satisfaction  of  seeing  the  English 
king  completely  humiliated  before  him,  begging  his  pontif- 
ical protection,  and  disgracefully  swearing  that  he  would 
'"'submit  always  to  the  Roman  Church^''  and  requiring  his 
sons  to  do  the  same.  The  contest  between  Alexander  and 
Frederick  was  long  and  fierce.  The  emperor  marched  into 
Italy  with  his  army,  but  was  repulsed.  At  one  time  a  pes- 
tilence swept  off  his  soldiers  so  rapidly,  before  the  walls  of 
Rome,  that  he  was  compelled  to  retreat,  which  strengthen- 
ed Alexander,  on  account  of  the  popular  belief  that  it  was 
the  work  of  the  Divine  hand.  At  last  Frederick  was  driven 
to  the  necessity  of  submitting  to  terms  of  peace  with  the 
pope ;  and,  when  these  had  been  agreed  upon,  he  went  to 
Venice   to   meet  Alexander,  from  whom  he   humiliatingly 


TRIUMPH  OF  THE  POPE.  415 

begged  absolution  and  forgiveness.  The  following  account 
of  this  disgraceful  scene  is  copied  by  Cormenin  from  the 
historian  Fortunatus  Ulmus : 

"  When  the  emperor  arrived  in  the  presence  of  the  pope, 
he  laid  aside  his  imperial  mantle,  and  knelt  on  both  knees, 
with  his  breast  on  the  earth.  Alexander  advanced  and 
placed  his  foot  on  his  neck,  while  the  cardinals  thundered 
forth  in  loud  tones,  'Thou  shalt  tread  upon  the  cockatrice, 
and  crush  the  lion  and  the  dragon. '(^')  Frederick  exclaim- 
ed :  *  Pontiff,  this  prediction  was  made  of  St.  Peter,  and  not 
of  thee  !'  '  Thou  liest,'  replied  Alexander  ;  *  it  is  written  of 
the  apostle  and  of  me ;'  and,  bearing  all  the  weight  of  his 
body  on  the  neck  of  the  prince,  he  compelled  him  to  si- 
lence. He  then  permitted  him  to  rise,  and  gave  him  his 
blessing ;  after  which  the  whole  assembly  thundered  forth 
the'TeDeum."'n 

-^  The  next  day  Frederick  Barbarossa,  the  degraded  em- 
peror of  the  great  German  nation,  kissed  the  feet  of  Alex- 
ander, and,  on  foot,  led  his  horse  by  the  bridle  as  he  return- 
ed from  solemn  mass,  to  the  pontifical  palace.  And  thus 
Alexander  III.  succeeded  in  accomplishing  what  many  of 
his  predecessors  had  striven  for — actually  placing  his  foot 
upon  the  neck  of  one  of  the  greatest  and  proudest  of  earth- 
ly monarchs  !  The  papacy  had  now  risen  to  a  height  of 
grandeur  and  power  which  it  had  never  reached  before. 
The  sword  of  Peter  had  conquered  the  sword  of  Caesar  ! 
This  event  gave  so  much  joy  to  Rome  that  a  picture  of 
the  pope  treading  under  his  feet  the  head  of  the  emperor 
hung  for  a  long  time  upon  the  walls  of  St.  Peter's  Church 
at  Rome,  and  was  afterward  painted  in  the  hall  of  the  Vat- 
ican. (") 

Alexander,  now  seated  upon  a  throne  higher  than  that  of 
princes,  found  that  while  he  had  been  so  vigorously  engaged 
in  the  prosecution  of  his  ambitious  projects,  the  internal  af- 
fairs of  the  Church  had  become  greatly  deranged  in  conse- 
quence of  the  prevailing  corruption  among  the  clergy.    The 


n  Psalm  xc,  13.  O  Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  444. 

(*')  "  Jouniey  into  Italy,"  by  Montaigne,  p.  321.     Montaigne  saw  this 
picture  in  1.581. 


416  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

necessity  for  reform  had  also  given  rise  to  numerous  heresies 
— as  every  thing  was  called  that  did  not  favor  the  Court  of 
Rome.  He  accordingly  convened  a  general  council  at  Rome, 
in  1179,(")  for  the  purpose,  more  particularly,  of  suppressing 
the  Waldenses  and  the  Albigenses.  Among  other  decrees, 
this  council  enacted  a  canon,  in  which  these  humble  and 
devout  Christians  are  called  "abominable"  and  "execra- 
ble heretics;"  the  faithful  are  admonished  to  take  up  arms 
against  them,  under  the  promise  of  indulgences;  are  re- 
leased from  all  their  obligations  to  them,  even  though  they 
may  arise  out  of  treaty  stipulations ;  are  freed  from  all  their 
oaths  to  them,  however  solemn  ;  and  are  enjoined  "  to  con- 
fiscate their  goods,  reduce  them  to  slavery,  and  put  to  death 
all  who  are  unwilling  to  be  converted."(") 

Thus  we  find  the  False  Decretals  bearing  still  other  fruit 
—  the  legitimate  offspring  of  the  execrable  principle  intro- 
duced by  Gratian,  which  justifies  a  resort  to  force ^  in  order 
to  compel  the  recognition  of  the  Roman  Catholic  faith  —  a 
principle  still  maintained,  in  our  own  day,  in  the  Syllabus 
of  Pope  Pius  IX.  !(**)  Alexander,  in  obedience  to  the  coun- 
cil, preached  a  crusade  against  the  Vaudois,  and  sent  thou- 
sands of  ignorant  and  rapacious  fanatics  among  them  to 
strip  them  of  their  property,  to  persecute  and  exterminate 
them.  All  readers  of  history  are  familiar  with  the  terrible 
scenes  which  ensued.  Under  a  legate  of  the  pope,  their 
peaceful  valleys  were  invaded,  "  scaffolds  were  erected,  the 
instruments  of  torture  rent  anew  the  victims  of  supersti- 
tion ;  then  re-appeared  all  the  frightful  apparatus  which  the 
ministers  of  tyranny  could  carry  with  them.  Thousands  of 
heretics,  old  men,  women,  and  children,  were  hung,  quarter- 
ed, broken  upon  the  wheel,  or  burned  alive,  and  their  prop- 
erty confiscated  for  the  benefit  of  the  king  and  the  Holy 
See."(") 

The  thirteenth  century  opened  with  Innocent  HI.  and 
closed  with  Boniface  VIII.  in  the  pontifical  chair,  each  of 
them  ready  to  put  in  practice  all  the  principles  of  the  False 

(")  This  is  called  the  Third  Lateran  Council. 
(*^)  Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  446. 

(")  See  the  Syllabus,  Appendix  D,  proposition  xxiv. 
(*^)  Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  447. 


INNOCENT  III.  417 

Decretals,  especially  those  which  contributed  to  the  aug- 
mentation of  the  papal  power.  The  sixteen  popes  who  in- 
tervened between  them  so  conducted  the  affairs  of  the 
Church  as  to  cause  the  historian  Matthew  Paris,  a  monk  of 
St.  Albans,  to  declare  that  he  had  rather  die  than  assist  in 
the  prevailing  iniquities.  According  to  him,  they  practiced 
an  "  odious  tyranny,"  and  their  harpies  snatched  "  even  the 
last  rags  which  cover  the  faithful  to  maintain  the  luxury  of 
the  court  of  Rome ;"  and  so  universal  was  the  corruption, 
that  he  exclaimed,  "Religion  is  dead, and  the  Holy  City  has 
become  an  infamous  prostitute^  whose  shamelessness  surpasses 
that  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,'^''  Therefore,  it  was  but  the 
natural  result  of  the  condition  of  affairs  at  the  beginning  and 
end  of  this  century,  that  both  Innocent  and  Boniface  should 
each  endeavor  to  rival  the  most  ambitious  of  their  predecessors 
in  extending  and  consolidating  the  power  of  the  papacy. 

Innocent  III.,  after  repossessing  himself  of  some  Italian 
possessions  which  his  predecessors  had  lost,  turned  his  at- 
tention elsewhere,  so  as  to  widen  the  fields  of  his  conquests. 
He  made  an  effort  at  negotiation  with  the  Greek  Christians, 
that  he  might  bring  them  again  under  the  papal  dominion. 
But  failing  in  this,  he  incited  the  Bulgarians  to  revolt 
against  the  Eastern  emperor,  caused  a  part  of  Servia  to  be 
detached  from  his  empire,  and  made  one  of  his  own  tools 
governor  of  that  province.  He  quarreled  with  Philip,  King 
of  France,  excommunicated  him,  and  placed  his  kingdom  un- 
der interdict,  so  that  all  the  churches  were  closed  for  eight 
months,  and  the  dead  were  left  unburied  !  He  pursued  the 
grandson  of  Frederick  Barbarossa,  who  was  the  legitimate 
heir  to  the  throne  of  Germany,  with  his  implacable  hatred, 
and  endeavored  to  dispossess  him  by  declaring,  first  for 
Philip  of  Suabia,  and  then  for  Otho  of  Saxony,  after  the  lat- 
ter had  made  him  large  "  presents !"  He  wrote  to  Otho : 
"  By  the  authority  which  God  has  cjiven  us  in  the  person  of 
St.  Peter^  we  declare  you  king,  and  we  order  the  people  to 
render  you,  in  this  capacity,  homage  and  obedience.  We, 
however,  shall  expect  you  to  subscribe  to  all  our  desires  as 
a  return  for  the  imperial  crown."(")     But  after  this  pontif- 

(^^)  Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  459. 

27 


418  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

ical  gift  of  the  German  crown  to  Otho,  he  was  defeated  by- 
Philip  ;  when  the  pope,  with  the  adroit  cunning  of  a  politi- 
cian, recognized  Philip  as  emperor.  Philip,  however,  was 
assassinated  soon  after,  and,  thus  being  out  of  the  way,  the 
pope  turned  again  to  Otho  and  consecrated  him  as  emperor 
at  St.  Peter's  in  Rome,  taking  care  to  require  of  him  an  oath 
that  he  would  defend  the  Church  and  its  patrimony.  Otho, 
failing  in  this  to  the  extent  demanded  by  the  pope,  was  ex- 
communicated, and  all  his  subjects  released  from  their  alle- 
giance to  him !  Innocent  was  satisfied  with  nothing  less 
than  complete  and  entire  submission  to  his  will.  And,  true 
to  the  teachings  of  the  False  Decretals,  he  inaugurated  meas- 
ures of  force  and  oppression  to  compel  obedience  to  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Church.  He  issued  a  bull  to  his  legate,  Dom- 
inic, commanding  him  to  put  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  city 
of  Beziers,  in  France,  to  the  sword  ;{*'')  and,  in  obedience  to 
it,  sixty  thousand  Vaudois  were  buried  beneath  its  ashes, 
none  being  saved  but  young  girls  and  boys,  who  were  aban- 
doned to  the  brutality  of  the  soldiers.  He  resolved  to  crush 
out  the  rising  spirit  of  popular  liberty  wherever  it  made  its 


(*'')  Du  Pin,  vol.  ii.,  p.  151.  This  Roman  Catholic  author  shows  the  steps 
taken  by  Innocent  III.  to  "  exterminate  "  the  Albigenses  in  Languedoc,  Prov- 
ence, Danphine,  and  Arragon.  In  the  year  1199,  he  confiscated  their  es- 
tates. He  excited  their  princes  to  engage  in  a  crusade  for  their  destruction. 
And  whatsoever  was  done  to  accomplish  this  end  was  either  by  his  express 
direction,  or  had  his  pontifical  approval — even  the  establishment  of  the  cruel 
and  bloody  Inquisition.  He  leaves  no  doubt  whatever  upon  this  latter  point, 
when  he  says  :  "  The  pope  and  the  prelates  were  of  opinion  that  it  was  law- 
ful to  make  use  of  force,  to  see  whether  those  who  were  not  reclaimed  out  of 
a  sense  of  their  salvation  might  be  so  by  the  fear  of  punishments,  and  even 
of  temporal  death.  There  had  been  already  several  instances  of  heretics 
condemned  to  fines,  to  banishments,  to  punishments;  and  even  to  death  it- 
self; but  there  had  never  yet  been  any  war  proclaimed  against  them,  nor  any 
crusade  preached  up  for  the  extirpation  of  them.  Innocent  III.  was  the 
first  that  proclaimed  such  a  war  against  the  Albigenses  and  Waldenses,  and 
against  Raymond,  Count  of  Toulouse,  their  protector.  War  might  subdue 
the  heads,  and  reduce  whole  bodies  of  people ;  but  it  was  not  capable  of  al- 
tering the  sentiments  of  particular  persons,  or  of  hindering  them  from  teach- 
ing their  doctrines  secretly.  Whereupon  the  pope  thought  it  advisable  to  set 
up  a  tribunal  of  such  persons  whose  business  it  should  be  to  make  inquiry 
after  heretics,  and  to  draw  up  informations  against  them :  and  from  hence 
this  tribunal  was  called  The  Inquisition." — Ibid.,  p.  154. 


INNOCENT  III.  CANCELS  MAGNA  CHARTA.  419 

appearance,  and,  for  this  purpose,  canceled  the  concessions 
which  the  English  barons  had  obtained  from  King  John,  in 
the  Great  Charter  of  Liberties,  and  ordered  that  they  be 
disregarded,  under  the  penalty  of  excommunication.  In  all 
these  acts,  and  others  of  a  kindred  character,  he  showed 
himself  possessed  of  very  high  qualities  as  the  leader  of  a 
party;  but  all  that  he  did  was  prompted  by  but  one  motive 
— that  of  raising  the  papacy  above  all  the  thrones  and  gov- 
ernments of  earth.  This,  with  him,  was  an  all-absorbing 
and  controlling  passion.  The  canon  law,  founded,  as  it  then 
stood,  mainly  upon  the  pseudo-Isidorian,  Gregorian,  and  Gra- 
tian  forgeries,  had  already  been  constructed  and  construed 
with  this  end  in  view ;  and,  therefore,  the  personal  interest, 
no  less  than  the  ambition  of  Innocent  III.,  led  him  to  pre- 
serve all  these  forgeries  with  care,  so  that,  in  the  course  of 
time,  the  "  pious  fraud "  might  become  sanctified  by  time, 
because  perpetrated  in  the  name  of  St.  Peter !  The  result  he 
hoped  and  sought  for  has  been  accomplished. 

When  Boniface  VIII.  became  pope,  in  the  year  1294,  the 
affairs  of  the  Church  were  in  a  very  unsettled  and  disturbed 
condition.  There  were  then,  as  there  have  always  been, 
good  and  pious  Christians  among  both  clergy  and  laymen, 
with  whom  it  was  impossible  to  look  unconcernedly  upon 
the  prevailing  corruptions  at  Rome.  Notwithstanding  the 
Inquisition  had  been  established  by  Pope  Innocent  III.  for 
the  purpose  of  suppressing  all  inquiry  into  these  corruptions, 
there  were  some  of  this  class  who  had  the  courage  to  defy 
it,  and  to  cry  out  against  the  immoralities  and  vices  of  the 
popes  and  those  who  basked  in  the  sunshine  of  their  favor. 
Not  being  numerous  or  powerful  enough,  however,  to  con- 
stitute an  effective  body  of  reformers,  their  very  weakness 
invited  the  continuance  by  Boniface  VIII.  of  the  means  in- 
augurated by  Innocent  III.,  in  order  to  stifle  their  investi- 
gations and  put  an  end  to  their  complaints.  The  resort  to 
force  to  do  this,  having  now  become  a  fixed  principle  of  the 
canon  law,  Boniface,  in  continuing  to  employ  it,  not  only 
had  the  example  of  his  predecessors  to  justify  him,  but  acted 
in  accordance  with  his  own  inclinations.  Ciaconius  said  of 
him,  while  he  was  a  cardinal,  "  This  cardinal  had  a  great 
depth  of  iniquity,  knavery,  audacity,  and  cruelty,  as  well  as 


420  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

a  measureless  ambition,  and  an  insatiable  avarice."(*^)  And 
many  opportunities  were  offered  him,  during  his  pontificate, 
to  exhibit  all  these  characteristics. 

Boniface  made  a  cruel  and  unjustifiable  war  upon  the  fam- 
ily of  the  Colonnas.  There  were  two  cardinals  of  this  fami- 
ly, and  these  he  drove  out  of  Italy,  despoiling  their  property 
and  seizing  their  castles.  He  quarreled  with  Philip,  King 
of  France,  about  his  affair  with  the  Earl  of  Flanders,  one  of 
his  own  subjects,  and  threatened  to  interdict  the  kingdom 
unless  he  would  recognize  his  temporal  power  over  him.  He 
commanded  the  clergy  of  France  not  to  pay  any  thing  to 
the  king  for  the  support  of  the  Government  without  his 
consent.  He  declared,  in  a  bull  issued  for  the  purpose,  that 
"God  had  established  him  over  kings  and  kingdoms,  to 
pluck  up,  to  destroy,  to  scatter,  to  build ;  that  the  King  of 
France  ought  not  to  think  he  has  no  superior,  and  is  not 
subject  to  the  pope ;  that  he  who  is  of  that  opinion  is  a  fool 
and  an  infidel."  He  addressed  himself  thus  to  Philip :  "Boni- 
face the  bishop,  a  servant  of  the  servants  of  God,  to  Philip, 
King  of  France  :  Fear  God,  and  keep  his  commandments. 
We  will  you  to  know  that  you  are  subject  to  us,  both  in 

spirituals  and  temporals We  declare  them  heretics 

who  believe  the  contrary."(")  Here  was  an  act  ex  cathedrd^ 
from  the  chair  of  Peter,  and  concerning  the  faith.  It  was 
performed  by  an  infallible  pope,  and,  therefore,  binds  the 
faithful  no  less  now  than  the  day  on  which  the  bull  of  Boni- 
face was  issued. 

The  king,  dukes,  earls,  and  barons  of  France  united  in  a 
protest  against  these  extraordinary  demands,  and  the  As- 
sembly of  the  States  resolved  that  France  was  not  subject 
to  the  pope  in  temporals.  The  prelates  also  interfered  on 
the  side  of  Philip,  and  addressed  Boniface  in  favor  of  recon- 
ciliation. The  pope,  in  reply,  declared  that  the  doctrine  of 
the  French  Assembly  was  "  schismatical,  because  it  tends  to 
the  establishment  of  two  supreme  heads,"(")  and  summoned 
the  French  prelates  to  Rome.  This  was  forbidden  by  the 
king,  and  the   controversy  became   exceedingly  angry   on 


(*")  Apud  Covmenin,  vol.  ii.,  p.  31.  O  Du  Pin,  vol.  xii.,  p.  5. 

C')  Ibid.,  p.  6. 


THE  BULL  UNAM  SANCTAM.  421 

both  sides — one  party  asserting  and  the  other  denying  the 
temporal  authority  of  the  pope  in  France.  Boniface  con- 
vened a  consistory  in  Rome,  wherein  one  of  the  cardinals 
spoke  "  boldly  for  the  authority  of  the  pope  over  the  tem- 
poralities of  kings,"  and  Boniface  did  the  same,  insisting 
that  he  had  the  right  to  "depose"  the  king.  The  king,  on 
his  part,  listened  to  severe  accusations  against  the  pope, 
made  by  Nogaret,  wherein  he  was  charged  with  heresy,  sim- 
ony, robbing  churches,  tyranny,  blasphemy,  extortion,  and 
many  other  crimes.  The  pope  then  issued  his  famous  bull, 
TJnam  Sanctam^  which  was  also  an  act  ex  cathedrd^  part  of 
the  faith  of  the  Church.  In  this  bull  he  declares  "  that  the 
Church,  which  is  one,  has  two  swords,  one  spiritual,  and  the 
other  temporal;  that  the  temporal  is  subject  to  the  spirit- 
ual; and  that  none  can  deny  this  truth  without  admitting 
of  two  supreme  heads,  with  the  Manichees."(")  We  have 
already  seen,  elsewhere,  the  precise  wording  of  this  bull,  and 
also  that  Pope  Pius  IX.  has  in  his  Encyclical  declared  it  to 
be  yet  a  part  of  the  canon  law,  as  containing  principles 
by  which  his  own  pontifical  conduct  is  regulated.  And  it 
remains  only,  in  this  connection,  to  be  seen  that  Boniface, 
by  virtue  of  his  claim  of  infallibility,  made  it  a  part  of  the 
canon  law  of  Rome. 

Du  Pin  says :  "  This  pope  caused  to  be  composed  and  pub- 
lished a  new  body  of  decretals,  entitled  Sextus,  divided  into 
five  books,  containing  some  decretals  of  his  predecessors, 
from  the  time  of  Gregory  IX.,  and  many  of  those  which  he 
made  in  his  own  pontificate.  This  collection  was  not  only 
rejected  in  France,  but  there  was  even  a  time  when  nobody 
durst  make  use  of  it,  or  quote  it."(") 

In  view  of  all  the  foregoing  facts,  it  is  impossible  to 
doubt  about  the  origin  of  the  temporal  power  of  the  popes, 
or  that  it  was  the  result  of  usurpation,  fraud,  and  forgery. 
Even  acquired  as  it  has  been,  it  would  have  been  acquiesced 
in  by  the  Christian  nations  if  the  ambition  of  the  popes  had 
not  tempted  them  to  extend  it  beyond  the  boundary  of  the 
Papal  States.  If  they  had  been  content  to  let  it  stand 
where  the  Galilean  Catholics  of  France  were  willing  to  con- 

(")  Du  Pin,  vol.  xii. ,  p.  7.  _  O  Ibid. ,  p.  9. 


422  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

cede  that  it  existed  —  in  those  states  alone  —  the  present 
pope  might  yet  have  been  the  "  King  of  Rome."  The  elo- 
quent pen  of  Bossuet  was  employed  to  defend  the  independ- 
ence of  the  Holy  See,  so  as  to  protect  it  from  the  jealousies 
of  kings  and  princes ;  yet  he  assigned  to  it  the  "  heavenly 
power  of  governing  "  only  when  it  was  "  under  the  protec- 
tion of  Christian  kings."(^')  Not  satisfied,  however,  with 
this,  the  popes  have  struggled  for  centuries,  with  untiring 
assiduity,  to  place  all  the  governments  of  the  world  under 
their  protection ;  to  ignore  the  right  of  the  people  every- 
w^here  to  construct  their  own  governments ;  to  make  both 
kings  and  people  obey  them;  to  convert  all  the  nations  into 
one  grand  Holy  Empire,  with  whomsoever  should  occupy  the 
papal  chair  as  its  absolute  monarch ;  and  by  these  means  to 
put  the  whole  world  u^nder  their  feet !  Passing  along  near- 
er to  our  own  time,  we  shall  have  no-  difficulty  in  observ- 
ing the  progress  of  the  struggle  inaugurated  by  these  papal 
usurpations,  and  in  realizing  how  necessary  it  was  to  the 
happiness,  and  especially  to  the  freedom,  of  mankind  that 
these  usurpations  should  be  resisted.  And  the  lessons  we 
shall  thus  learn  will  not  only  be  instructive  in  this  view, 
but  we  shall  be  compensated  for  the  performance  of  the 
task  by  seeing  the  condition  into  which  the  world  would  be 
thrown  if  its  progress  were  now  arrested,  and  the  nations 
were  thrown  back  into  the  darkness  and  superstition  of  the 
Middle  Ages  by  the  triumph  of  the  principles  announced  by 
the  present  pope.  If  forewarned,  we  shall  ourselves  be  to 
blame  if  we  are  not  also  forearmed. 

(")  "  Primacy  of  the  Holy  See,"  by  Kenrick,  p.  267. 


CHRISTIANITY  IN  ENGLAND.  423 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

The  Native  Britons. — Their  Religion  before  Augustine. — Gildas  and  Bede. 
— Augustine  holds  Synod  with  British  Bishops.  —  His  Threats  against 
Them. — Conversion  of  Ethelfred.  —  Battle  of  Carlegeon,  and  Murder  of 
Monks  of  Bangor. — Roman  Religion  introduced. — The  Effects  of  It. — 
Otfa  murders  Ethelbert,  and  the  Pope  pardons  Him. — He  establishes  Pe- 
ter-pence.— He  accepts  a  Code  of  Canon  Laws  from  Adrian  I. — The  Na- 
tive Britons  and  the  Saxons. — Their  Customs  and  Religion  are  imparted 
to  each  Other. — Saxon  Kings  willingly  accept  the  Doctrine  of  the  "Di- 
vine Right  "  to  govern  from  Rome. — The  Norman  Conquest. — Harold. — 
William  of  Normandy. — The  Decision  of  Alexander  II.  upon  his  Claim. 
— Consecrated  Banner  and  a  Hair  of  St,  Peter. — Battle  of  Hastings. — In- 
fluence on  England. — Celibacy  introduced. — Example  of  the  Legate  of 
Honorius  II. — Innocent  III.  and  King  John. — He  releases  the  Subjects 
of  John  from  their  Allegiance. — Holds  all  Disobedient  Kings  to  be  Traitors 
to  God.^His  Claim  of  Power  and  that  of  Pius  IX.  the  Same.  —  Church 
and  State  united. — Cardinal  Antonelli  to  Papal  Nuncio  at  Paris. — He 
approves  the  Bull  Unigenitua  of  Clement  XI. — His  Theory  of  the  Indi- 
rect Power. — Its  Effect. — A  Heretical  King  forfeits  his  Kingdom. — The 
Pope  chooses  a  King  for  a  Heretical  Nation. 

The  working  of  the  papal  system  and  its  influence  upon 
civil  policy  are  nowhere  more  clearly  seen  than  in  the  prin- 
cipal events  which  led  to  the  Reformation  in  England.  As 
we  trace  the  birth  of  oar  popular  institutions  back  to  the 
great  uprising  of  the  people  there,  we  can  not  fail  to  realize 
how  manifestly  it  was  designed  by  Providence  as  the  means 
of  breaking  the  sceptre  of  ecclesiastical  tyranny  and  giv- 
ing freedom  to  the  human  mind.  Having  already  observed 
enough  to  demonstrate  the  necessity  for  reform  among  the 
prelates  and  clergy  of  the  Roman  Church,  we  shall  find,  as 
we  go  along,  ample  means  of  comparing  Protestantism  with 
Romanism,  and  more  particularly  with  that  perverted  form 
of  it  which  is  maintained  by  those  who  direct  the  policy  of 
the  papacy,  and  exultingly  call  themselves  "  the  princes  of 
the  Church." 

The   native  Britons  had  their  own  form  of  Christianity, 


424-  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

existing  apart  from  their  Druidical  worship,  which,  in  what- 
soever way  it  was  acquired,  they  believed  to  be  of  apostol- 
ic origin.  Upon  this  subject  there  is  much  false  teaching  in 
history.  All  the  papal  writers  affirm  that  Christianity  was 
first  introduced  into  Great  Britain  in  the  year  597,  by  the 
monk  Augustine  and  the  missionaries  who  accompanied  him 
from  Rome,  during  the  pontificate  of  Gregory  I.  And  many 
Protestant  writers  concede  this,  seemingly  disposed,  without 
investigation,  to  accept  it  as  a  fact,  because  it  has  been  so 
frequently  and  dogmatically  asserted. (')  There  is  nothing 
farther  from  the  truth;  and  the  evidence  of  this  is  so  abun- 
dant and  conclusive  that  no  intelligent  man,  if  he  will  take 
the  pains  to  examine  it,  can  entertain  any  reasonable  doubt 
upon  the  subject. 

Clement,  who  was  a  disciple  of  Peter  and  a  fellow-worker 
of  Paul,  and  who  was  Bishop  of  the  Roman  Church  about 
the  end  of  the  first  century,  wrote  his  First  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians  shortly  before  his  death  —  probably  about  the 
year  97.  Referring  to  Paul,  he  says  he  preached  "  both  in 
the  East  and  West,"  and  went  to  "  the  extreme  limit  of  the 
TFes^."(^)  Now,  we  know  that  after  the  Roman  conquest 
of  Great  Britain,  before  the  birth  of  Christ,  the  country  was 
governed  by  a  Roman  prefect  or  propraetor,  who  maintained 
his  authority  by  a  large  military  force,  and  required  the  pay- 
ment of  an  annual  tribute  by  the  native  inhabitants.  And 
we  know  also  that  the  Britons  were  unable  to  expel  the 
Roman  magistrates  and  establish  their  independence  until 

Q)  In  the  "  Outlines  of  History,"  by  Willson,  which  has  become  an  Amer- 
ican school-book,  the  subject  is  disposed  of  in  a  few  words,  thus :  "  It  ap- 
pears that  about  the  year  597  Christianity  was  first  introduced  into  England 
by  the  monk  Augustine,  accompanied  by  forty  missionaries,  who  had  been 
sent  out  by  Pope  Gregory  for  the  conversion  of  the  Britons.  The  new  faith, 
such  as  it  pleased  the  Church  to  promulgate,  being  received  cordially  by  the 
kings,  descended  from  them  to  their  subjects,  and  was  established  without 
persecution,  and  without  the  shedding  of  the  blood  of  a  single  martyr  " — ■ 
P.  261.  The  text  will  show  how  entirely  unreliable  are  such  unconsidered 
statements  as  these.  They  are  almost  as  far  from  the  "truth  of  history  "  as 
the  stories  of  "  The  Arabian  Nights." 

O  "Anti-Nicene  Christian  Library,"  The  Apostolic  Fathers,  vol.  i.,  p.  11. 
This  epistle  of  Clement  is  also  found  in  "The  Apocryphal  New  Testament," 
published  some  years  ago  in  New  York. 


PAUL  PREACHED  IN  THE  EXTREME  WEST.  425 

about  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  centuiy.  Hence  the  con- 
clusion is  clear  that,  if  Paul  preached  in  "the  extreme  lim- 
it of  the  West,"  he  must  have  gone  to  Great  Britain  and 
planted  the  Gospel  there.  Or,  if  the  expression  of  Clement 
be  taken  in  a  narrower  and  more  limited  sense,  and  Gaul  be 
considered  as  the  utmost  field  of  Paul's  labors,  then  we  may 
conclude  that  the  Christianity  planted  by  him  there  was  car- 
ried over  to  Britain  by  means  of  the  intercourse  between  the 
Gauls  and  the  Britons. 

Eusebius  and  Theodoret  both  assert  that  Christianity  was 
carried  to  Britain  by  some  of  the  apostles,  but  without  nam- 
ing Paul  or  any  other  apostle.  Tertullian  and  Origen  both 
speak  of  it  as  established  in  their  day — the  first  half  of  the 
third  century — and  the  former  says  distinctly  that  Christ 
was  solemnly  worshiped  by  the  inhabitants.  Irenseus  says 
that  Christianity  was  carried  to  the  "Celtic  nations,"  which 
included  the  Britons.  Baronius,  the  annalist,  says  that  there 
'was  a  MS.  in  the  Vatican  library  at  Rome  which  proved  that 
Simon  Zelotes,  the  apostle,  propagated  the  Gospel  in  Brit- 
ain, and  that  Joseph  of  Arimathea  went  there  about  the 
year  35,  and  died  there.  Other  authors  mention  the  same 
facts ;  and  Dorotheus,  Bishop  of  Tyre,  says  that  Aristobulus, 
to  whom  St.  Paul  refers  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  was 
the  first  bishop  of  Britain. (^) 

Gildas  the  Wise  wrote  his  "  History  of  the  Destruction  of 
the  Brittaines"  in  the  year  546,  fifty-one  years  before  the 
mission  of  Augustine.  Every  page,  and  almost  every  sen- 
tence, of  this  book  shows  the  existence  of  a  British  Christian 
Church  at  that  time.  It  is  crowded  with  extracts  from  the 
Old  and  the  New  Testament,  and  makes  many  references 
to  the  condition  of  the  British  Christians.     At  one  place  he 


"  Britaine  hath  Priests,  but  some  shee  hath  that  are  un- 
wise ;  very  many  that  minister,  but  many  of  them  impu- 
dent; Clearkes  shee  hath,  but  certaine  of  them  deceitful  rav- 


(^)  The  authorities  upon  this  subject  nre  all  compiled  by  Bishop  Short  in 
his  "  History  of  the  Church  of  England," pp.  1,  2.  And  also  by  a  more  re- 
cent author,  the  Rev.  T.  C.  Collins  Trelawny,  in  a  work  entitled  "Perranza- 
buloe:  The  Lost  Church  Found," 


426  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

eners;  Pastors  (as  they  are  called),  but  rather  wolves  pre- 
pared for  the  slaughter  of  Soules."(*) 

In  the  same  connection  he  immediately  speaks  of  "Apos- 
tolicall  decrees,"  "  Priesthood  or  episcopal  dignity,"  "  follow- 
ers of  the  Apostles,"  "  the  office  of  a  Bishop  or  Priest,"  etc., 
thus  establishing  the  fact,  beyond  controversy,  that  Chris- 
tianity had  been  introduced  and  a  British  Church  establish- 
ed long  before  Augustine  was  sent  there  by  Gregory.  As  to 
the  time  when  this  was  done,  Gildas  is  not  very  explicit,  but 
he  states  quite  enough  to  show  that  the  British  Christians 
in  his  day  traced  their  Christianity  back  to  the  apostolic 
times.     Referring  to  their  religion,  he  says : 

"In  the  meane  while,  Christ,  the  true  Son  of  God,  spread- 
ing forth  not  onely  from  this  temporall  firmament,  but  also 
from  the  Castell  and  Court  of  Heaven  (which  exceedeth  all 
times)  throughout  the  whole  world^  his  most  glorious  light, 
especially  (as  we  know)  in  the  Raigne  of  Tiberius  Coesar^ 
(whereas  in  regard  to  that  Emperour)  against  the  will  of^ 
the  Senate  threatned  death  to  the  disturbers  of  the  profess- 
ors thereof,  Religion  was  most  largely  without  any  hin- 
drance dispersed  of  his  infinite  mercy,  did  first  cast  on  this 
Island,  starving  with  frozen  cold,  and  in  a  farre  remote  cli- 
mate from  the  visible  sunne,  his  gladsome  beames,  to  wit,  his 
most  holy  Lawes."(^) 

Some  have  supposed  that  Gildas  intended  to  assert  here 
that  Christianity  was  carried  to  Britain  in  the  reign  of  Ti- 
berius. But  this  conclusion  can  not  be  reached  without 
great  confusion  of  dates.  Tiberius  died  about  the  year  37, 
and  it  was  either  during  that  or  the  preceding  year  that 
Paul  was  converted  on  the  road  to  Damascus.  The  "  door 
of  faith  "  was  opened  to  the  Gentiles  about  the  year  42  or 
43.  The  assemblage  of  the  apostles  at  Jerusalem  was  about 
the  year  50.  At  that  time  it  was  agreed  that  Paul  and 
Barnabas  should  "go  unto  the  heathen,"  that  is,  to  the 
Greeks  and  Romans;  and  that  Peter  and  John  should  "go 


0)  Gildas,  London,  1641,  p.  184.  See  "The  Conquest  of  Britain  by  the 
Saxons,"  by  Haigh,  London,  vol.  i.,  pp.  15, 16,  showing  that  the  native  Brit- 
ons carried  their  Christianity  into  Cornwall  and  Wales. 

O  Gildas,  pp.  13,  14. 


PETER  PKEACHED  IN  ASIA  MINOR.  427 

unto  the  circumcision,"  that  is,  to  the  Dispersion,  in  the 
provinces  of  Asia  Minor.  Paul  did  not  go  to  Rome  until 
about  the  year  60,  when  he  went  as  a  prisoner,  and  there  is 
not  a  word  in  the  whole  of  the  gospels  to  show  that  any 
one  of  the  apostles  visited  that  city  before  that  time.  It 
was  undoubtedly  after  that  when  Paul  went  to  "  the  ex- 
treme limit  of  the  West "  to  preach,  and  it  is  not  likely  that 
any  of  the  apostles  were  there  before  him.  Therefore  Gil- 
das  could  not  have  meant  to  fix  the  reign  of  Tiberius  as  the 
time  when  the  Gospel  was  preached  in  Britain.  And  if  his 
language  be  carefully  scanned,  it  does  not  bear  that  mean- 
ing, although  it  is  somewhat  obscure.  He  must  have  meant 
to  say  that  the  light  of  the  Gospel  began  to  spread  forth 
during  the  reign  of  Tiberius,  which  is  the  fact;  that  Tiberius 
"threatened  death  to  the  disturbers  of  the  professors"  of  re- 
ligion, and  that  then  Christianity,  having  an  opportunity  to 
disperse  itself,  first  reached  the  island  of  Britain.  That  this 
is  his  real  meaning,  and  that  he  intended  to  assign  the  intro- 
duction of  Christianity  to  Paul,  is  evident  from  the  following 
language,  which  he  elsewhere  uses: 

"Which  of  yee  for  the  confession  of  the  true  word  of 
Christ,  hath,  like  the  vessell  of  election,  and  chosen  Doctor 
of  the  Gentiles  [Paul],  after  suffering  the  chaines  of  impris- 
onment, sustayning  of  shipwracke,  after  the  terrible  scourges 
of  whips,  the  continuall  dangers  of  seas,  of  theeves,  of  Gen- 
tiles^ of  Jews^  and  of  false  apostles,  after  the  labours  of  fam- 
ine, of  fasting,  etc.,  after  his  incessant  care  had  over  all  the 
churches,  after  his  exceeding  trouble  for  such  as  scandalized, 
after  his  infirmity  for  the  weake,  after  his  admirable  pere- 
grination over  almost  the  whole  v^orld  in  preaching  the  Gos- 
pel of  Christ,  through  the  stroke  of  the  sword  lost  his  head," 
etc.O 

Here,  in  speaking  of  the  labors  of  Paul  as  extending  over 
"  almost  the  whole  world,"  the  inference  is  unavoidable  that 
he  intended  to  include  Great  Britain,  which,  as  a  Roman 
province,  was  an  important  part  of  the  world.  But,  howev- 
er this  may  be,  the  fact  is  incontestable  that  Christianity  in 
Great  Britain  antedated  many  years  the  mission  of  Augus- 

O  Gildas,  p.  217. 


42$  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

tine  from  Rome.  And  it  is  equally  true  that  the  British 
Christians  had  a  church  of  their  own,  regularly  organized, 
which  existed  independently  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  Even 
Lingard,  the  great  Roman  Catholic  historian,  is  compelled 
to  say,  "That  the  Christian  faith  was  publicly  professed  in 
Britain  before  the  close  of  the  second  century,  is  clear  from 
incontestable  authority." (')  But  he  immediately  endeavors 
to  break  the  force  of  this  admission  by  insisting  that  after 
this  time  the  race  of  native  Britons  disappeared  before  the 
Saxons,  and  that  with  them  also  disappeared  their  refine- 
ments and  "knowledge  of  the  Gospel;"  and  that  the  worship 
of  Woden  took  the  place  of  the  worship  of  God.  This  is  not 
probable,  if  it  is  even  possible.  It  is  a  naked  assertion  with- 
out any  proof  to  sustain  it. 

Venerable  Bede  refers  to  the  desolating  war  carried  on  by 
the  Saxons  against  the  Britons,  showing  that  the  country 
was  overrun  by  fire  and  sword,  and  the  inhabitants  "  butch- 
ered in  heaps."  But  he  says  that  some  of  them  escaped  to 
the  mountains,  so77ie  fled  beyond  the  seas,  and  others  "  led  a 
miserable  life  among  the  woods,  rocks,  and  mountains."(^) 
Rapin  says  the  Saxons  became  masters  everywhere  except 
in  Wales. (^)  And  Lingard  himself,  in  another  work,  with- 
out entering  into  details,  says  it  would  be  interesting  "to 
exhibit  the  causes  which  transferred  the  greater  part  of  the 
island  from  the  milder  dominion  of  the  Romans  to  the  ex- 
terminating sword  of  the  Saxons."(*'')  It  is  not  true,  then, 
that  the  race  of  native  Britons  disappeared  before  the  Sax- 
ons ;  and,  inasmuch  as  they  were  not  exterminated,  it  is  a 
most  natural  conclusion  that  those  of  them  who  remained  in 
Wales,  and  were  concealed  in  different  parts  of  the  island, 
retained  and  preserved  their  religious  faith  and  church  or- 
ganization. AH  history  shows  that  when  a  people  are  thus 
persecuted  and  driven  ifrom  their  homes,  they  cling  to  these 
with  the  utmost  tenacity  and  with  unfiiltering  courage. 
And  this  conclusion  is  supported  by  the  condition  in  which 


(')  "Anglo-Saxon  Church,"  by  Lingard,  p.  18  (note). 
O  "Eccl.  Hist,  of  England, ""by  Bede,  Bohn's  ed.,  p.  25. 
O  "  History  of  England,"  by  Rapin,  vol.  i.,  pp.  144,  145. 
(")  "  History  of  England,"  by  Lingard,  vol.  i.,  pp.  42,  43. 


THE  EARLY  BRITISH  CHURCH.  429 

Augustine  found  the  inhabitants  when  he  reached  there. 
That  there  were  then  Christians  there  is  undoubtedly  true ; 
and  that  they  were  all  native  Britons  is  equally  true,  for, 
as  is  conceded  on  all  hands,  none  of  the  Saxons  were  con- 
verted until  afterward.  It  may  be  laid  down,  then,  as  an 
indisputable  fact,  that  Christianity  always  existed  in  Great 
Britain  from  the  time  of  its  first  introduction ;  that  is,  at  all 
events,  from  the  second  century. 

When  Augustine  arrived  in  Kent,  during  the  reign  of 
Ethelbert,  he  came  in  immediate  contact  with  an  organized 
Christian  community,  having  ordained  bishops  and  other 
church  functionaries.  With  the  assistance  of  the  king  he 
assembled  these  together,  and  invited  them  to  unite  with 
him  in  "  the  common  labor  of  preaching  the  Gospel  to  the 
Gentiles."  They  kept  the  festival  of  Easter  according  to 
the  custom  of  the  Eastern  Christians,  and  not  that  of  Rome — 
a  fact  which  goes  to  show  that  they  had  not  then  submitted 
to  the  Council  of  Nice,  and  were,  consequently,  independent 
of  the  Roman  Church.  And  "they  did  several  other  things 
which  were  against  the  unity  of  the  Church,"  in  the  Roman 
sense;  that  is,  against  the  supremacy  of  the  pope.  Thus, 
having  their  own  Church  organization  and  their  fixed  prin- 
ciples of  religious  faith,  they  declined  to  "  comply  with  the 
entreaties,  exhortations,  or  rebukes  of  Augustine  and  his 
companions,  but  preferred  their  own  traditions  before  all 
the  churches  in  the  world."  Then,  it  is  said,  the  pretended 
miracle  performed  by  Augustine,  of  restoring  a  blind  man  to 
sight,  extorted  from  the  Britons  the  concession  that  he  was 
a  preacher  of  the  divine  truth;  nevertheless,  they  declared 
"that  they  could  not  depart  from  their  ancient  customs 
without  the  consent  and  leave  of  their  people."  A  second 
synod  was  subsequently  held,  no  more  favorable  to  Rome 
than  the  first.  At  this  assemblage  there  were  present,  on 
the  part  of  the  British  Christians,  seven  bishops, "  and  many 
most  learned  men."  To  these  Augustine  proposed  that  if 
they  would  consent  to  keep  Easter  and  administer  baptism 
according  to  the  custom  of  the  Roman  Church,  and  unite 
with  him  in  the  propagation  of  the  word  of  God  among  the 
British  people,  he  would  "tolerate  all  other  things"  they 
might  do ;  that  is,  if  they  would  only  recognize  the  sover- 


430  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

eign  supremacy  of  the  pope  over  them,  they  could  believe 
and  do  whatsoever  else  they  pleased  !  The  papal  proposi- 
tion was  again  rejected,  the  British  Christians  continuing  to 
prefer  their  own  to  the  religion  of  Rome,  and  at  once  the 
true  spirit  of  Roman  propagandism  was  displayed.  (^^)  Seem- 
ingly conscious  of  being  supported  by  a  strong  and  aggress- 
ive power,  Augustine  replied  to  these  humble  and  tolerant 
British  Christians  in  words  of  insolent  defiance  and  threat, 
"that  in  case  they  would  not  join  in  unity  with  their  breth- 
ren they  should  be  warred  upon  by  their  enemies ;  and  if 
they  would  not  preach  the  way  of  life  to  the  English  na- 
tion, they  should  at  their  hands  undergo  the  vengeance  of 

death  !"n 

Did  Augustine  design  this  language  as  a  threat?  The 
language  itself  is  susceptible  of  no  other  meaning ;  and  if 
the  foregoing  quotation  shows  truly  what  he  said,  there  is  no 
room  for  doubt  about  it.     The  extract  is  taken  from  Bede, 

(")  Rapin  gives  the  answer  of  Dinoth,  Abbot  of  Bangor,  to  the  proposition 
of  Augustine,  in  these  expressive  words  : 

"You  propose  to  us  obedience  to  the  Church  at  Rome.  Are  you  ignorant 
that  we  already  owe  a  deference  to  the  Church  of  God,  to  the  bishop  of 
Rome,  and  to  all  Christians,  of  love  and  charity,  which  obhges  us  to  en- 
deavor by  all  possible  means  to  assist  and  do  them  all  the  good  we  can  ? 
Other  obedience  than  this  to  him  you  call  pope  we  know  not  of,  and  this  we 
are  always  ready  to  pay.  But  for  a  superior,  what  need  have  we  to  go  so 
far  as  Rome,  when  we  are  governed,  under  God,  by  the  Bishop  of  Caerleon, 
who  hath  authority  to  take  care  of  our  churches  and  spiritual  affairs  ?" — His- 
tory of  England^  by  Rapin,  vol.  i.,  p.  237. 

"Giraldus  Cambrensis  is  of  opinion  that  Christianity  came  to  England 
from  Asia ;  it  must  not,  however,  be  forgotten  that  the  island  was  much  vis- 
ited by  ships  sailing  from  a  portion  of  Africa,  where  a  church  was  early  es- 
tablished. There  can  not  be  a  question  that,  for  a  considerable  period  before 
the  advent  of  Augustine,  the  Christian  faith  had  taken  root  in  England ;  and 
at  the  period  of  his  visit  there  were  among  the  Britons,  in  Wales  and  Scot- 
land, native  prelates,  an  ordained  priesthood,  and  a  ritual  differing  in  essen- 
tial features  from  the  Roman.  The  Abbot  of  Bangor  explained  to  Augustine 
and  his  associates  that  an  apostolic  church  had  existed  in  this  part  of  the 
world  without  any  subjection  to  the  father  of  fathers,  and,  notwithstanding 
his  mission  from  Pope  Gregory,  was  likely  to  remain  so. " — Lives  of  the  En- 
glish Cardinals,  by  Williams,  London  ed.,  vol.  i.,  p.  22  (note),  citing  also 
"Historical  Vindication  of  the  Church  of  England,  in  point  of  Schism,"  by 
Twysden,  p.  7. 

(")  Bede,  pp.  68-71. 


AUGUSTINE  THREATENS  PEHSECUTION.  431 

whose  accuracy  is  not  doubted  by  any  body,  and  who  un- 
doubtedly understood  Augustine  as  threatening  vengeance 
against  the  British  Christians,  because  they  would  not  con- 
sent to  obey  the  pope  !  No  contrary  interpretation  could 
ever  have  been  given  to  his  words,  had  not  the  defenders 
of  the  pope's  supremacy  found  it  necessary  to  break  the 
force  of  this  objection  to  their  system  of  ecclesiastical  or- 
ganization by  placing  Augustine  in  the  attitude  of  making 
a  prophecy^  and  not  a  threat.  Hence  we  find  Lingard,  one 
of  their  standard  authors,  instead  of  quoting  truly  from 
Bede,  representing  him  as  putting  this  language  into  the 
mouth  of  Augustine  :  "  Know,  then,  that  if  you  will  not  as- 
sist me  in  pointing  out  to  the  Saxons  the  way  of  life,  they, 
by  the  just  judgment  of  God,  will  prove  to  you  the  minis- 
ters of  death."C') 

Let  the  reader  compare  these  words  with  those  of  Bede, 
and  he  will  see  at  a  glance  how  the  latter  are  perverted. 
Bede  does  not  say  a  word  about  the  judgment  of  God,  which 
was  to  fall  upon  the  Britons  for  their  disobedience,  or  that 
they  were  to  be  providentially  punished  by  having  the  Sax- 
ons become  the  "  ministers  of  death  "  to  them,  or  any  thing 
that  can  be  tortured  into  such  a  meaning.  Lingard  is  incon- 
sistent with  himself  in  putting  these  words  into  the  mouth 
of  Aucrustine.  He  had,  but  a  little  while  before,  said  that 
before  that  time  the  Britons  had  "  disappeared  "  before  the 
Saxons ;  and  yet,  in  order  to  change  the  threat  of  Augus- 
tine into  a  prophecy,  he  has  the  British  Christians  still  exist- 
ing as  fit  subjects  for  Saxon  vengeance  !  The  papacy,  how- 
ever, requires  far  greater  inconsistencies  of  those  who  enter 
upon  its  defense.  In  this  particular  case,  it  required  the  in- 
vention of  a  new  set  of  words  ;  and  Lingard  has  supplied 
them.  And,  seeming  indisposed  to  dwell  upon  them,  he 
follows  them  with  this  single  sentence,  "He  did  not  live  to 
see  the  prediction  verified,"  using  the  word  in  the  sense  of 
prophecy.  But  it  is  clear  that  the  language  of  Augustine,  as 
recorded  by  Bede,  does  not  bear  this  interpretation.  Other 
words  are  found  at  another  place  in  his  history,  wherein  he 


(")  "Anglo-Saxon  Church,"  by  Lingard,  p.  42.     The  same  author  also 
uses  the  same  Uinguage  in  his  "  History  of  England,"  vol.  i.,  p.  55. 


432  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

is  represented  as  speaking  of  "  the  prediction  of  the  holy- 
Bishop  Augustine."  Referring  to  the  murder  of  "about 
twelve  hundred  "  of  the  unarmed  monks  of  Bangor  by  the 
Saxon  king,  a  convert  of  Augustine,  for  no  other  offense  than 
that  o^ praying  for  the  success  of  their  countrymen,  and  re- 
fusing obedience  to  Rome,  he  says:  "Thus  was  fulfilled  the 
prediction  of  the  holy  Bishop  Augustine,  though  he  him- 
self had  been  long  before  taken  up  into  the  heavenly  king- 
dom."('^)  If  these  words  are  really  such  as  Bede  used,  they 
are  consistent  only  with  the  supposition  that  the  language 
of  Augustine  was  that  given  by  Lingard.  But  we  have  seen 
that  his  language  was  in  every  essential  particular  different, 
and  therefore  are  justified  in  looking  upon  this  last  extract 
at  least  with  some  degree  of  suspicion.  If,  however,  it  is  ac- 
curately taken  from  the  original,  it  is  but  the  construction 
which  Bede  placed  upon  the  language  of  Augustine,  which 
he  has  handed  down  to  us,  and  which  we  can  interpret  for 
ourselves.  Now,  when  it  is  considered  that  the  words  of 
Augustine  were,  that  the  British  Christians  "should  be  w^ar- 
red  upon  by  their  enemies," and  "should,  at  their  hands,  un- 
dergo the  vengeance  of  death;"  and,  further,  that  he  did  not, 
as  Lingard  alleges,  say  one  word  about  "the  just  judgment 
of  God  "  w^hich  was  to  fall  upon  them,  his  plain  and  obvious 
meaning  must  have  been  that  he  would  employ  the  means 
necessary  to  bring  about  this  result ;  in  other  words,  that  as 
it  was  a  part  of  the  canon  law  of  Rome  that  force  could  be 
rightfully  employed  to  compel  obedience  to  the  papacy,  he 

(")  Bede,  p.  72.  See  also  note,  where  it  is  said  that  this  passage  has  been 
regarded  as  having  been  added  to  the  original. 

M.  Angustin  Thierry,  referring  to  this  statement,  says :  "  It  was  a  nation- 
al tradition  among  the  Welsh,  that  tlie  chief  of  the  new  Anglo-Saxon  Church 
caused  this  invasion,  and  pointed  out  the  monastery  of  Bangor  to  the  pagans 
of  Northumberland.  It  is  impossible  to  affirm  any  thing  positive  on  this 
point ;  but  the  coincidence  of  time  rendered  the  imputation  so  grave  as  to 
make  the  friends  of  the  Romish  Church  desirous  of  destroying  all  traces  of 
that  coincidence.  In  almost  all  the  manuscripts  of  the  sole  historian  of  these 
events  [Bede]  they  inserted  the  statement  that  Augustine  was  dead  when  the 
defeat  of  the  Britons  and  the  massacre  of  the  monks  of  Bangor  took  place. 
Augustine  was,  indeed,  old  at  that  period  ;  but  he  lived  at  least  a  year  after  the 
military  execution  which  he  had  so  exactly  predicted." — History  of  the  Con- 
quest of  Enyland  by  the  Normans,  by  Thierry,  Bohn's  ed.,  vol,  i.,  pp.  31),  40. 


PERSECUTION  OF  BBITISH  CHRISTIANS.  433 

would  teach  this  to  the  Saxon  kings,  his  converts,  and  incite 
them  to  the  bloody  and  murderous  work.  Why,  otherwise, 
did  he  omit  any  reference  to  the  "judgment  of  God?"  And 
why,  if  the  meaning  of  his  language,  as  given  by  Bede,  were 
not  perfectly  clear,  and  did  not  mean  a  threat  instead  of  a 
prophecy,  has  it  been  considered  necessary  to  substitute  oth- 
er language  for  it,  not  used  by  Bede,  entirely  perverting  the 
original  meaning  ? 

There  can  be  no  other  conclusion  fairly  arrived  at,  from 
the  whole  account  of  this  transaction  as  given  by  Bede,  than 
that  Augustine  had  reference  to  his  own  agency,  and  not  to 
the  providence  of  God,  in  bringing  about  the  punishment  of 
these  humble  British  Christians,  for  no  other  offense  than 
that  of  adhering  to  their  "  ancient  customs,"  and  preferring 
their  "own  traditions"  in  preference  to  the  customs  and  tra- 
ditions of  Rome,  and  of  choosing  to  obey  their  own  bishop 
rather  than  the  pope  !  What  was  there  in  all  this  that  God 
should  curse  them  for,  or  should  cause  "about  twelve  hun- 
dred" of  their  number  to  be  butchered  in  cold  blood?  Is 
it  not  time  that  the  world  should  hear  no  more  of  such  de- 
basing superstition  as  this — that  the  vengeance  of  God  will 
fall  upon  all  who  oppose  the  papacy — when  we  now  see  all 
the  Roman  Catholic  governments  destroyed,  the  temporal 
sceptre  of  the  pope  broken,  no  king,  or  prince,  or  people  on 
all  the  earth  having  either  the  power  or  will  to  defend  the 
papacy,  and  the  Protestant  nations  and  peoples  marching  for- 
ward, with  marvelous  and  unchecked  prosperity,  in  the  full 
sunlight  of  intellectual,  moral,  and  material  development  ? 

The  sequel  shows  how  well  Augustine  accomplished  his 
design,  how  true  he  was  to  the  teachings  of  Rome.  How 
different  was  his  method  of  propagating  the  Gospel  from 
that  practiced  by  Christ  and  the  apostles !  They  went 
among  the  humble  and  obscure,  the  poor  and  the  unletter- 
ed ;  but  he  dealt  only  with  the  Saxon  kings.  And  when  he 
had  brought  these  to  realize  that  the  best  means  of  pre- 
serving their  crowns  was  by  adopting  a  system  of  religion 
which  taught,  as  its  starting-point,  the  necessity  of  passive 
submission  and  obedience  to  authority,  he  succeeded  in  so 
training  his  new  converts  as  to  cause  them  to  murder  the 
harmless  British  monks,  merely  for  praying  that  the  British 

28 


434  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

Christians — their  own  countrymen — might  be  able  to  defend 
themselves  successfully  against  the  Roman  Christians(!)  at 
the  Battle  of  Carlegion,  where  the  attempt  was  made  to 
destroy  them  for  maintaining  their  ancient  religion  !  The 
manner  in  which  Bede  relates  these  events  must  excite  the 
tire  of  indignation  in  every  honest  Christian  heart,  although 
more  than  twelve  centuries  have  passed.  It  was  the  begin- 
ning of  religious  persecution  in  England,  and  at  no  one  time 
since  then  has  bloodier  work  been  done.  When  the  poor 
British  monks  went  out  to  pray  at  the  battle,  taking  no  part 
in  the  conflict  of  arms,  and  Ethelfred,  one  of  the  converted 
Saxon  kings,  was  informed  of  it,  he  said  :  "  If,  then,  they  cry 
to  their  God  against  us,  in  truth,  though  they  do  not  bear 
arms,  yet  they  fight  against  us,  because  they  oppose  us  by 
their  prayers." (^^)  Then,  out  of  twelve  hundred  and  fifty, 
twelve  hundred  of  these  praying  Christians  were  cruelly 
butchered,  for  refusing  to  acknowledge  the  Pope  of  Rome 
as  the  head  of  their  Church  ! 

And  thus  did  papal  vengeance  and  papal  intolerance  be- 
gin their  work  of  bloody  persecution  at  the  very  first  plant- 
ing of  Romanism  in  England!  To  Rome  all  other  Christian- 
ity than  its  own  was — as  it  yet  is — barbarism ;  and,  there- 
fore, the  sword  was  drawn  to  hew  down  these  poor  British 
Christians,  not  because  they  did  not  worship  God,  but  be- 
cause they  would  not  obey  the  pope  !  And  thus  we  learn 
what  papal  writers  mean  when  they  tell  us  that  Augustine 
first  carried  Christianity  into  England.  With  them  there  is 
no  Christianity  except  that  which  comes  from  Rome — none 
which  does  not  acknowledge  entire  and  passive  submission 
to  the  pope,  none  that  does  not  put  the  pope  in  the  place  of 
God  on  earth  ! 

Thus  introduced,  the  papal  power  was  preserved  in  En- 

('^)  Bede,  p.  71.  Notwithstanding  it  is  incontestably  true  that  the  British 
Christians  were  numerous  at  the  time  of  the  mission  of  Augustine  and  of 
this  attempt  to  exterminate  them  by  the  sword,  a  late  work  publislied  in  the 
United  States  makes  this  statement,  which  is  an  improvement  upon  that  of 
Lingard :  "  The  Gospel  was  preached  in  England  during  the  second  century, 
but  had  become  extinct  at  the  time  that  kingdom  was  conquered  by  the  Sax- 
on idolaters,  who  banished  the  first  inhabitants .'" — History  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  by  Noethen,  p.  266. 


THE  POPE  PARDONS  OFFA  FOR  MURDER.  435 

gland  for  hundreds  of  years,  by  the  authority  of  kings  who 
were  held  in  obedience  to  Rome  by  that  part  of  its  religion 
which  teaches  that  they  govern  by  divine  right ;  that  they 
derive  their  crowns,  not  from  the  people,  but  from  God, 
through  the  pope  as  his  sole  earthly  representative.  What- 
ever occasional  conflicts  about  spiritual  and  temporal  juris- 
diction may  have  arisen  between  these  kings  and  the  popes 
on  account  of  personal  interest  or  ambition,  this  sentiment 
has  been  common  to  them  all.  Differ  as  they  may  about 
other  things,  they  have  always  agreed  on  this,  because  it 
keeps  the  people  in  subjugation  to  them.  None  understood 
better  than  they  that  those  who  select  the  rulers  of  a  nation 
are  its  masters.  The  papacy  has  always  taught  that  the 
people  have  no  right  to  govern,  but  are  bound  to  the  duty 
of  obedience  to  princes.  Therefore  the  popes  have  never 
hesitated  to  invoke  the  assistance  of  the  armies  of  princes  in 
carrying  on  the  work  of  popular  subjugation.  They  have 
caused  mercenary  hordes  to  be  turned  loose  upon  harmless 
and  inoffensive  people,  as  the  Albigenses  and  Waldenses, 
without  the  slightest "  compunctious  visitings  of  conscience," 
for  no  other  purpose  than  to  bring  them  down  into  a  condi- 
tion of  inferiority  and  subordination.  And  when  they  have 
thus  made  princes  minister  to  their  ambition,  they  have  held 
them  in  like  subordination,  by  threatening  to  devastate  their 
dominions.  Thus  England  was  governed  for  centuries,  with 
the  load  of  papal  tyranny  pressing  with  the  weight  of  mount- 
ains upon  her.  Her  kings  kept  no  faith  except  that  which 
bound  them  to  Rome;  and  the  popes  were  always  ready  to 
release  them  from  the  most  solemn  obligations,  and  to  sanc- 
tion the  most  enormous  crimes,  when  the  interest  of  the  pa- 
pacy required  it.  Offa,  one  of  the  Romish  kings  of  the  Hep- 
tarchy, invited  Ethelbert,  King  of  the  East-Angles,  to  visit 
his  court,  under  the  pretense  of  marrying  his  daughter. 
But,  that  he  might  become  master  of  East-Anglia,  he  vio- 
lated the  sacred  laws  of  personal  honor  and  hospitality  by 
his  assassination.  To  quiet  the  remorse  of  a  guilty  con- 
science, he  went  to  Rome  to  obtain  a  pardon  from  the  pope, 
who,  availing  himself  of  the  opportunity  of  extending  his 
power  and  enlarging  his  jurisdiction,  readily  granted  it  "on 
condition  he  would  be  liberal  to  the  churches  and  monas- 


436  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

teries !"  that,  says  the  historian,  being  "  the  way  of  atoning 
for  sins  then !"('") 

Offa  repaid  this  act  of  pardon  by  the  pope  in  a  manner 
which  subsequently  proved  most  fatal  to  the  happiness  and 
prosperity  of  England.  One  of  the  West-Saxon  kings  had 
already  established  at  Rome  a  college  for  the  education  of 
English  youth,  and  had  ordered  2i  penny  to  be  collected  each 
year  from  every  family  for  its  support.  Offa  extended  this 
tax  over  Mercia  and  East-Anglia ;  and  thus  was  originated 
the  celebrated  Peter -pence,  which  came  to  be  afterward 
claimed  by  the  popes  as  a  tribute  from  the  English  to  St. 
Peter  and  his  successors,  and  which  they  converted  to  their 
own  use  for  many  years,  and  until  it  was  abolished  by  Hen- 
ry VIII.('^);  jBut  King  Offa  did  more  than  this  to  degrade 
his  country,  and  to  show  how  completely  he  had  become 
the  vassal  of  the  pope,  who  was  at  that  time  Adrian  I.  The 
pope  sent  two  legates  to  England  with  a  code  of  ecclesias- 
tical laws  carefully  prepared  by  himself,  which  he  required 
to  have  introduced  there  for  the  government  of  the  king- 
dom. These  legates  called  two  synods,  one  of  which  met  in 
Mercia,  and  was  attended  by  King  Offa  in  person ;  and  the 
introduction  of  this  papal  code  as  the  law  of  England  was, 
under  his  influence,  consented  to.(^®)  And  thus  a  power  was 
built  up  in  England  sufticiently  strong  to  govern  the  coun- 
try, without  reference  to  the  people  or  any  responsibility  to 
them,  but  responsible  only  to  the  pope  I  What  these  laws 
were  can  now  be  learned  only  by  comparing  them  with  others 
which  have  grown  out  of  the  papal  system.  But  it  may  be 
safely  assumed  that  the  papal  clergy  were  by  them  freed 
from  all  responsibility  to  the  domestic  laws  of  the  kingdom, 
and  were  by  this  means  erected  into  a  privileged  and  irre- 
sponsible class,  looking  only  to  the  pope  for  direction  in  all 
things.  Pope  Adrian  I.,  whose  character  may  be  inferred 
from  what  has  been  elsewhere  said,(^*)  would  have  been  sat- 
isfied with  nothing  less  than  this.     Into  what  a  condition 

(")  Rapin,  voL  i.,  p.  187 ;  "  Anglo-Saxon  Chronicle,"  by  Bede,  A.  792,  p. 
342. 

(")  Rapin,  vol.  i.,  p.  188. 

(")  "  History  of  England,"  by  Lingard,  vol.  i.,  p.  78. 
•  (")  Ante,  ch.  xi.,  p.  347. 


BRITONS  AND  SAXONS  GRADUALLY  UNITE.  437 

of  humiliating  degradation,  therefore,  was  England  dragged 
down  when  the  nation  and  people  were  laid  at  the  feet  of 
the  papacy!  It  was  the  price  of  her  obedience  to  papal 
despotism — the  result  of  the  Christianizing  (!)  influence  of 
Rome  upon  her  Saxon  kings  ! 

But  it  was  impossible  to  destroy  the  attachment  of  the 
native  Britons  for  their  ancient  religion,  for  that  form  of 
Christianity  which  they  believed  to  have  been  derived  from 
the  apostles,  as  it  was  also  impossible  to  break  their  cour- 
age. They  and  the  Saxon  common  people  had  mingled  to- 
gether until,  by  association  and  intermarriage,  their  former 
prejudices  had  been  worn  away,  and  they  now  constituted  a 
peaceful  and  homogeneous  society.  They  had  acquired  all 
the  leading  characteristics  necessary  for  a  new  and  more 
vigorous  nationality.  The  Britons  imparted  to  the  Saxons 
some  of  their  ideas  of  religion  and  Christianity,  while  the 
Saxons,  in  return,  imparted  to  them  some  of  the  principles 
of  civil  government  they  had  brought  with  them  from  the 
valleys  of  the  Elbe,  the  Eyder,  and  the  Rhine.  Yet  they 
were  held  in  tight  subjection  by  their  princes,  who  were 
themselves  held  in  equally  tight  subjection  by  the  popes. 
The  people  were  surrounded  on  every  side  by  remorse- 
less oppressors,  and  had  to  rise  up,  under  this  tremendous 
weight,  by  slow  degrees,  and  through  sufferings  it  would  re- 
quire many  volumes  to  detail. 

The  Saxons  belonged  to  the  Teutonic,  or  Germanic,  stock, 
and  differed  essentially  from  the  Latin  race,  which  clung  to 
the  shores  of  the  Mediterranean.  Having  succeeded,  as  ear- 
ly as  the  fourth  centurj^,  in  resisting  the  aggressions  of  the 
Roman  empire,  they  formed  a  confederacy,  which  laid  the 
foundation  of  their  "  progressive  greatness."(")  Although 
overwhelmed  by  the  armies  of  Charlemagne,  their  influence 
was  never  entirely  eradicated,  and  their  distinctive  princi- 
ples were  preserved  through  every  variety  of  fortune.  These 
principles  have  always  been,  from  the  date  of  their  first  con- 
federation, "singularly  propitious  to  human  improvement."(") 
At  the  time  of  their  settlement  in  England,  they  had  their 


C^")  "  History  of  the  Anglo-Saxons,"  by  Sharon  Turner,  vol.  i.,  p.  132. 
CO  76iU,vol.i.,p.  135. 


438  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

chiefs,  or  war  -  kings,  who  were  carefully  held  in  subjection 
to  the  popular  power;  and  when  they  elected  a  king,  "their 
consent  in  the  gemote  continued  to  be  necessary  to  the  more 
important  acts  of  his  authority ;"(")  thus  showing  that  they 
were  not  then  governed  without  their  own  consent,  even  by 
their  kings.  Their  religion  was  pagan  ;  yet  after  their  con- 
quest of  England  there  is  no  evidence  that  they  ever  inter- 
fered with  that  of  the  native  Britons  until  after  their  kings 
yielded  to  the  influence  of  Rome !  We  have  seen  that  the 
religion  of  these  native  Britons  was  at  no  time  eradicated 
after  the  first  introduction  of  Christianity,  but,  on  the  oth- 
er hand,  that  it  was  preserved  and  cherished  by  the  people. 
Hence,  as  the  Saxons  found  Christianity  there,  it  was  im- 
possible that  they  could  have  escaped  its  influence,  as  it 
was  also  impossible  that  the  Britons  could  have  escaped 
the  Saxon  influence.  The  common  people  had  no  motive 
to  prompt  them  to  engage  in  the  work  of  exterminating 
each  other;  and  to  assert  that  they  did  so,  except  when 
constrained  to  it  by  the  policy  of  their  kings  and  the  dic- 
tation of  the  popes,  is  utterly  incredible.  And  it  is  not  at 
all  probable  that  any  others  than  those  who  composed  the 
respective  armies  ever  engaged  in  this  work.  Indeed,  there 
is  little  in  history  more  certain  than  that  the  body  of  the 
people  —  Britons  and  Saxons  —  especially  in  the  remote  dis- 
tricts, mingled  together  in  friendly  association,  so  as  to  im- 
press each  other  with  their  respective  sentiments  and  opin- 
ions. By  this  kind  of  influence  they  became,  at  last,  mold- 
ed into  one  people;  and  there  is  much  in  their  subsequent 
history  to  show  that  each  imparted  to  the  other  principles 
and  elements  of  character  which  still  impress  Anglo-Saxon 
institutions  wherever  they  exist,  and  distinguish  them  from 
those  which  have  been  erected  by  the  Latin  race.  It  can 
not  be  doubted  that  the  Saxon  idea  that  the  people  were 
the  source  of  even  the  kingly  power,  was  readily  accepted 
by  the  native  Britons,  who  yet  knew  nothing  about  heredi- 
tary kings,  or  their  divine  right  to  govern.  Nor  can  it  be 
doubted  that  after  the  Saxon  kimrs  had  become  obedient 


(**)  "  History  of  the  Anglo-Saxons,"  by  Sharon  Turner,  appendix  to  bk.  ii., 
vol.  i.,p.  183. 


ORIGIN  OF  ENGLISH  NATIONALITY.  439 

servants  of  the  popes,  they  labored  assiduously  to  eradicate 
this  principle,  which  had  been  inherited  by  the  Saxon  peo- 
ple from  their  Teutonic  ancestry.  These  kings  were  capti- 
vated at  once  with  the  idea  that  they  got  their  power  from 
God,  through  the  pope,  and  not  from  the  people;  for  they 
could  easily  understand,  ignorant  as  they  were,  that  if  the 
people  could  make,  they  could  also  unmake,  kings.  And 
hence  they  became  ready  and  willing  converts  to  the  pa- 
pal teaching — to  a  doctrine  which  confirmed  their  power  to 
them.  They  cheerfully  accepted  a  religion  so  congenial  to 
their  tastes — so  necessary  as  the  means  of  promoting  their 
ambition.  Rome  has  always  understood  well  how  to  teach 
this  to  kings ;  and  the  latter  have  generally  been  apt  and 
submissive  pupils — quick  to  learn,  and  slow  to  forget. 

There  is  no  satisfactory  evidence  anywhere  that  the  body 
of  the  Anglo-Saxon  people  ever  assented  to  the  doctrine  of 
the  divine  right  of  kings,  until  it  was  taught  as  a  part  of 
the  religious  system  of  Rome,  and  imposed  upon  them  by 
force.  There  is  abundant  evidence,  however,  to  show  that 
the  partial  and  interrupted  dominion  of  the  Northmen  in 
England,  which  continued  for  more  than  two  centuries,  was 
unable  to  destroy  the  early  Anglo-Saxon  influences.  On  the 
contrary,  these  influences  remained  impressed  upon  the  pop- 
ular mind,  and  were  occasionally  exhibited  in  the  struggles 
of  the  people  to  throw  off  the  yoke  which  their  kings,  in 
obedience  to  the  popes,  had  fastened  on  their  necks.  But 
whatever  may  have  been  the  result,  in  the  natural  course  of 
events,  of  the  mutuality  of  intercourse  and  sentiment  be- 
tween the  native  British  Christians  and  the  Saxons,  they 
were,  in  the  end,  brought  completely  and  compactly  togeth- 
er under  a  common  nationality,  and  jointly  exhibited  those 
qualities  which  achieved  their  triumph  in  all  their  contests 
with  the  kingly  and  papal  power.  And  when  they  succeeded 
in  ultimately  creating  the  English  nation,  they  so  stamped 
it  with  their  common  sentiments  and  opinions,  that  in  its 
wonderful  progress  it  has  absorbed  even  its  conquerors,  un- 
til, in  this  day,  the  whole  world  is  influenced  by  its  laws, 
its  language,  and  its  character. 

The  Norman  conquest  under  William  the  Conqueror  car- 
ried into  England  a  fresh   supply  of  papal  influences.     At 


440  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

the  death  of  Edward  the  Confessor,  Harold  became  king, 
by  tlie  almost  unanimous  consent  of  the  nation.  He  was 
elected  by  the  Witan,  with  the  full  approbation  of  the  peo- 
ple, "in  the  exercise  of  their  ancient  and  undoubted  right," 
and  was  "  acknowledged  as  king  by  every  earldom  and  ev- 
ery shire  in  England.  He  was  king,  alike  by  the  will  of  his 
predecessor,  by  the  choice  of  his  people,  by  the  consecration 
of  the  Church,  by  the  homage  of  the  thegns  and  prelates 
of  England. "(")  But  William,  Duke  of  Normandy,  set  up 
a  claim  to  the  throne  based  upon  pretexts  which,  if  they 
had  been  valid,  would  have  conferred  upon  him  no  right 
whatsoever  under  the  laws  of  England.  He  pretended  that 
Edward  had  made  to  him  a  gift  of  the  English  crown  before 
the  selection  of  Harold  as  his  successor,  and  that  Harold  had 
violated  his  oath  to  marry  his  daughter  and  to  pay  homage 
to  him.  William  was  a  devout  son  of  the  Church,  and  sub- 
mitted willingly  to  the  direction  of  the  great  Lanfranc,  Prior 
of  Bee,  and  the  foremost  man  in  the  Church  of  Normandy. 
Whether  the  plan  was  concerted  by  both  of  them,  or  origi- 
nated in  the  fertile  brain  of  the  latter,  is  of  no  consequence; 
but  it  was  agreed  that  William  should  submit  his  claim  to 
the  decision  of  the  pope;  that  is,  that  the  pope  alone  should 
decide  who  should  be  king  of  England,  without  any  regard 
to  the  wishes  of  the  people  or  the  authorities  of  the  nation. 
The  pope  at  that  time  was  Alexander  H.,but  "the  power  be- 
hind the  throne  "  was  the  great  Hildebrand.  While  any 
other  foreign  power  on  earth  would  have  refused  to  decide 
such  a  question,  yet  the  papal  court  did  not  hesitate  to  take 
jurisdiction  of  it,  on  the  ground  of  possessing  the  divine 
right  to  dispose  of  crowns  and  kingdoms.  It  was  of  no  con- 
sequence to  inquire  what  the  English  people  desired.  They 
were  incompetent  to  decide  what  the  law  of  God  required 
or  forbade.  Of  that  law  the  pope  was  the  exclusive  earthly 
custodian,  as  Pope  Pius  IX.  still  claims  to  be,  and  his  juris- 
diction was  derived  directly  from  God  !  It  marked  "  a  dis- 
tinct epoch  in  the  history  of  European  politics,  when,  for  the 
first  time,  the  occupant  of  the  apostolic  throne  was  called  on 

('*)  "The  Norman  Conquest,"  by  Freeman,  vol.  iii.,pp.  21-70;  Thierry, 
vol.  i.,  p.  152. 


THE  CLAIM  OF  WILLIAM  THE  CONQUEROK.  441 

to  adjudge  a  disputed  diadera."(")  The  embassador  of  Wil- 
liam, an  ecclesiastic,  was  sent  to  Rome  to  plead  his  cause. 
No  notice  of  the  proceeding  was  given  to  Harold.  But  the 
trial  went  on.  The  pope  was  told  that  William  "  craved  the 
blessing  of  the  Holy  See  upon  his  righteous  cause,"  and  if  he 
succeeded  would  "  hold  of  God  and  of  the  apostle  the  king- 
dom which  he  hoped  to  win."  One  side  only  was  heard. 
Harold  had  no  advocate  there  to  defend  him  against  his 
Norman  assailant.  England  had  not  submitted  the  disposal 
of  her  crown  to  such  a  tribunal,  and  recognized  no  right  but 
her  own  to  give  or  take  it  away.  But  the  interest  of  En- 
gland was  not  the  question  to  be  discussed  or  decided.  The 
only  question  considered  by  that  papal  tribunal  was — what 
did  the  interest  of  the  papacy  require  to  be  done  ?  The  am- 
bitious Hildebrand  saw  that  the  occasion  was  one  for  the  es- 
tablishment of  a  precedent,  which  would  enable  the  papacy 
thereafter  to  dispose  of  all  other  crowns;  and  his  counsel 
triumphed.  A  decree  was  passed,  declaring  Harold  to  be  a 
usurper,  and  W^illiam  of  Normandy  to  be  the  lawful  claim- 
ant of  the  English  crown  !  Harold  and  his  followers  were 
excommunicated,  and  William  was  authorized  to  go  forth  as 
an  avenger  of  Heaven.  He  was  required  to  teach  the  En- 
glish people  ^''due  obedience  to  Chrisfs  vicar ^''  and,  what  the 
papacy  never  forgets,  "  to  secure  a  more  punctual  payment 
of  the  temporal  dues  of  his  apostle."(")  A  costly  ring,  "  a 
hair  of  the  prince  of  the  apostles,"  and  a  consecrated  ban- 
ner were  sent  to  William,  in  order  that  it  might  appear  that 
his  "fraud  and  usurpation"  had  the  sanction  of  Heaven. 
Every  blessing  held  in  store  by  the  Church  was  conferred 
upon  William,  and  the  terrible  thunders  of  anathema  were 
hurled  at  the  head  of  Harold.  ('") 

While  it  is  apparent  that  Pope  Alexander  H.  had  in  all 
this  the  double  motive  of  subjugating  England  to  the  pa- 
pacy, and  of  giving  greater  strength  and  universality  to 
its  power,  yet  there  is  something  behind  it  which  the  saga- 
cious mind  of  Hildebrand  could  not  have  failed  to  discov- 
er.   Although  previous  popes  had  employed  the  Saxon  kings 

C*)  Freeman,  p.  317.  C^)  Ibid. ,  p.  320. 

O  Ibid.,  p.  321;  Thierry,  vol.  i.,  p.  159. 


442  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

for  the  advancement  of  their  ambitious  designs,  it  was  easy 
to  see  that  it  would  not  be  safe  to  rely  too  much  upon  the 
Saxon  and  British  people,  who  now,  by  several  hundred 
years  of  intercourse,  had  become  molded  into  one.  The 
Teutonic  stock  never  furnished  good  materials  for  slavery; 
and,  therefore,  the  papal  policy  was  so  directed  as  to  place 
England  in  the  hands  of  those  more  closely  allied  to  the 
Latin  race.  Hence,  the  preference  given  to,  and  the  pontific- 
al blessing  bestowed  upon,  William  of  Normandy  —  a  part 
of  France.  And  hence,  also,  we  find  that,  after  the  Battle 
of  Hastings,  and  before  William  had  reached  London,  the 
Romish  clergy  went  out  to  meet  and  congratulate  him  be- 
cause he  marched  under  the  consecrated  banner,  was  accom- 
panied by  the  papal  blessing,  and  was  "  well  disposed  to 
the  Church."(")  But  little  more  was  necessary  to  make  the 
conquest  of  England  complete.  It  was  soon  done,  and  Wil- 
liam placed  the  crown  upon  his  brow,  in  the  name,  not  of 
the  people  of  England,  who  were  not  consulted,  but  of  the 
Holy  See  of  Rome.  He  had  enforced  with  arms  the  decision 
of  the  pope,  and  had  brought  England  down,  in  degradation, 
to  the  feet  of  the  papacy. 

Although  William  and  other  kings  of  the  Norman  line 
had  some  fierce  controversies  with  the  popes,  about  investi- 
tures and  other  kindred  questions,  yet  they  constantly  and 
actively  endeavored  to  eradicate  all  the  Saxon  influences  in 
England,  as  far  as  possible,  and  substitute  for  them  those  of 
Norman  origin ;  that  is,  to  bring  the  country  under  the  in- 
fluence of  the  principles  prevailing  among  the  people  of  the 
Latin  race,  in  preference  to  those  of  Teutonic  origin.  The 
popes,  in  order  that  the  victory  in  these  controversies  might 
be  won,  and,  at  the  same  time,  to  keep  the  kings  within  their 
grasp,  conducted  them,  on  the  part  of  the  papacy,  with 
marked  sagacity.  They  made  a  merit  of  necessity  whenev- 
er it  forced  them  to  submit  to  firm  and  resolute  princes,  in 

(")  "  History  of  England,"  by  Rapin,  vol.  ii.,  p.  230.  Freeman  says,  when 
speaking  of  the  disgraceful  submission  at  Berkhampstead,  that  besides  the 
Metropolitans  of  York  and  Canterbury  and  the  Bishops  of  Worcester  and 
Hereford,  there  were  some  of  "  the  best  men  of  London,  and  many  others 
of  the  chief  men  of  England,"  who  went  on  the  "  sad  and  shameful  errand." 
—  The  Norman  Conquest,  by  Freeman,  vol.  iii.,  p.  547. 


CELIBACY  INTRODUCED  INTO  ENGLAND.  443 

order  that  thereby  they  might  preserve  their  strength  for 
the  more  complete  control  of  the  weaker  ones.  And  when 
they  succeeded  at  last  in  having  their  legates  recognized  in 
England,  they  were  enabled  to  place  by  the  side  of  the  king 
a  power  sufficiently  great  to  keep  the  nation  bound  fast  to 
Rome ;  and  to  war,  by  the  aid  of  the  Normans,  more  suc- 
cessfully against  all  the  liberalizing  influences  of  the  Anglo- 
Saxons. 

The  popes,  however,  needed  a  more  efficient  instrumental- 
ity than  any  they  had  yet  possessed  to  bring  about  the 
complete  subjugation  of  the  English  people.  This  was  the 
introduction  of  celibacy  among  the  English  clergy.  It  was 
considered  absolutely  necessary  to  the  perfect  working  of 
the  papal  system,  that  there  should  be  organized  a  compact 
body  of  ecclesiastics,  destitute  of  all  those  generous  sympa- 
thies which  grow  alone  out  of  the  family  relation,  that  they 
might  be  the  better  fitted  to  do  the  work  of  the  popes. 
Notwithstanding  sacerdotal  celibacy  finds  no  sanction  among 
the  early  Christian  fathers,  and  is  directly  opposed  to  the 
example  of  Peter  and  a  majority  of  the  apostles, C^^)  yet  its 
introduction,  as  a  matter  of  policy,  was  a  display  of  great  sa- 
gacity. The  experience  of  mankind  has  demonstrated  that 
there  is  no  other  place  around  which  so  many  of  the  most 
ennobling  sentiments  continually  cluster  as  the  domestic 
hearth-stone ;  and  that  those  who  cherish  in  their  hearts  the 
kindly  afiections  of  home  and  kindred  are  the  last  to  yield 
to  such  dictates  of  inhumanity  as  have  been  often  exhibit- 
ed by  those  who  have  built  up  and  maintained  the  papacy. 
Therefore,  the  celibacy  of  the  Roman  clergy  has  been,  since 
its  introduction,  considered  one  of  the  most  effective  means 
of  establishing  the  supremacy  of  the  popes;  and  for  this 
purpose  the  attempt  was  made  to  introduce  it  into  England, 
after  the  Norman  conquest.  The  pope  then  desired — as  the 
present  pope  also  does  —  to  set  apart  the  clergy  from  the 
body  of  the  community,  as  a  privileged  class,  with  power  to 

C^^)  It  is  supposed  that  all  the  apostles,  except  John  and  Paul,  were  mar- 
ried ;  and  Clement,  Ignatius,  and  Eusebius  think  that  Paul  was.  It  is  cer- 
tain that  Peter  and  Philip  had  children.  Not  one  of  the  early  fathers  con- 
demns the  marriage  of  the  clergy.  See  the  question  fully  discussed  in  Ed- 
gar's "Variations  of  Popery,"  ch.  xviii.,  p.  52G. 


444  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

govern  themselves  by  laws  of  his  and  their  own  enacting, 
independently  of  the  civil  power  and  the  laws  of  the  State. 
The  English  clergy  were,  at  first,  unwilling  to  give  up  their 
wives.  Pope  Gregory  VII.  (Hildebrand),  during  the  reign 
of  William  the  Conqueror,  had  a  decree  passed  by  a  council 
at  Rome  forbidding  them  to  marry,  The  clergy  resisted  it 
— for  many  of  them  had  wives.  A  synod  was  called  to  con- 
sider the  question,  but  it  did  not  adopt  the  decree.  A  com- 
promise was  agreed  upon  with  the  pope's  legate,  to  the  ef- 
fect that  those  who  had  cures  in  the  cities  should  put  away 
their  wives,  while  those  who  had  benefices  in  the  country 
should  be  allowed  to  retain  them ;  but  that  none  should  be 
thereafter  admitted  to  orders  before  they  had  sworn  that 
they  would  not  marry,  thus  showing  that  celibacy  is  a  mere 
measure  of  expediency  and  involves  no  religious  principle. 
The  imposition  of  this  restraint  had  the  effect  of  preventing 
competent  men  from  taking  orders,  and  inflicted  serious  in- 
jury upon  the  character  of  the  clergy.  Pope  Pascal  II.,  to 
remedy  this  —  showing,  at  the  same  time,  how  pliant  the 
principles  of  the  papacy  are  when  an  important  result  is  to 
be  obtained — decided  not  to  execute  the  canon  rigorously  in 
England,  and  granted  a  dispensing  power  to  the  Archbishop 
of  Canterbur3^  But  this  prelate  was  less  accommodating 
than  the  pope,  and  procured  the  condemnation  of  marriage 
by  the  decree  of  a  London  synod.  Pope  Honorius  II.  had  to 
send  one  of  his  cardinals  to  England  to  see  that  it  was  ex- 
ecuted. When  he  reached  there,  he,  as  legate,  convened  a 
council,  wherein  he  denounced  the  married  clergy  in  violent 
terms;  saying,  among  other  things,  that  "'twas  a  horrible 
crime  to  rise  from  the  side  of  a  harlot,  and  then  to  handle 
the  consecrated  body  of  Christ."  That  night,  after  this  im- 
pious and  vulgar  assault  upon  one  of  the  tenderest  and  most 
endearing  relations  of  life — a  relation  sanctioned  by  the  ex- 
ample of  the  Apostle  Peter  himself — this  pure-minded  (!) 
cardinal,  fresh  from  Rome  and  the  side  of  the  infallible  Ho- 
norius II.,  "?/jas  caught  in  bed  with  a  common  tcoman  P"* {^^) 
Of  course,  his  precepts  had  but  little  effect  against  an  exam- 
ple such  as  this,  and  other  eftbrts  were  rendered  necessary. 

C)  Rapin,  vol.  ii.,  p.  420. 


INNOCENT  III.  AND  CARDINAL  LANGTON.     445 

Some  yeai-s  after,  another  council  was  held,  when  it  was  con- 
sidered necessary  to  give  the  power  of  enforcing  the  canon 
to  the  king — a  duty  which  he  readily  undertook.  Like  the 
popes  in  the  use  of  their  dispensing  power,  he  employed 
his  authority  to  raise  his  royal  revenue  "  by  selling  to  the 
priests  a  dispensation  to  keep  their  wives  !"(^")  But,  not- 
withstanding all  these  difficulties,  celibacy  finally  became 
the  absolute  law  of  the  Church  in  England,  as  elsewhere. 
The  papal  Caesar  needed  his  corps  of  ecclesiastical  subordi- 
nates, as  completely  devoted  to  him  as  were  the  command- 
ers of  the  Roman  legions  to  the  pagan  Caesars.  Each  strug- 
gled for  absolute  dominion,  and  the  example  of  one  was  fol- 
lowed by  the  other.  Rome,  with  each,  was  the  central  seat 
of  empire — the  "  mistress  of  the  world." 

Having,  by  these  means  and  the  politic  use  of  the  bene- 
fices and  honors  of  the  Church,  caused  the  clergy  to  centre 
all  their  aflfections  upon  the  papacy,  the  popes  were  enabled 
to  persevere  in  their  schemes  to  aggrandize  their  power  to 
such  an  extent  that  they  compelled  the  disgraceful  and  hu- 
miliating surrender  of  the  crown  to  them  by  King  John. 
Pope  Innocent  III.  resolved  that  the  Archbishopric  of  Can- 
terbury should  be  filled  by  Cardinal  Langton  —  who,  though 
an  Englishman,  had  received  a  foreign  education  in  France — 
without  regard  to  the  wishes  or  consent  of  the  king.  John 
firmly  resisted  this  for  a  while,  and  the  pope,  to  punish  him, 
placed  the  kingdom  under  interdict,  so  that  divine  service 
ceased  in  all  the  churches,  the  sacraments  were  withheld, 
public  prayers  were  forbidden,  and  the  church-yards  were 
closed — the  dead  being  thrown  into  ditches,  like  dogs,  with- 
out any  funeral  ceremony. (^')  The  king,  in  retaliation,  treat- 
ed the  clergy  with  severity,  and  was  at  last  excommunicated 
by  the  pope.  John  remained  unmoved,  until  the  controver- 
sy became  one  involving  simply,  on  one  side,  the  triumph  of 
the  king ;  on  the  other,  that  of  the  pope — neither  party  hav- 
ing the  slightest  regard  for  the  interest  or  welfare  of  the  peo- 
ple, and  both  king  and  pope  entirely  subordinating  the  peace 
and  quiet  of  the  Church  to  their  own  personal  ambition  for 
supremacy.     The  pope  finally  sent  two  nuncios  to  England, 

O  Rapin,  vol.  ii.,  p.  420.  C')  I^^^-,  vol.  iii.,  p.  193. 


446  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

with  whom  John  was  persuaded  to  agree  that  some  ecclesias- 
tics he  had  banished  should  be  permitted  to  return,  that  the 
privileges  of  the  Church  should  be  restored,  and  that  Lang- 
ton  should  be  confirmed  as  Archbishop  of  Canterbury — thus 
yielding  to  the  pope  every  thing  he  had  desired  at  the  be- 
ginning of  the  quarrel.  But  he  yielded  too  readily,  and  dis- 
played so  little  real  courage,  that  Innocent  III.  was  too  bold 
a  politician  not  to  take  immediate  advantage  of  it.  His  man- 
ifest object  was  to  humiliate  the  king,  and  reduce  the  king- 
dom to  entire  submission  to  himself,  so  that  he  could  bring 
all  the  people  under  ecclesiastical  government,  with  Rome 
as  the  seat  of  all  authority.  Therefore  he  demanded  that 
all  that  had  been  taken  from  the  clergy  should  be  restored 
and  full  damages  paid — when  he  knew  that  it  was  impossi- 
sible  for  the  king  to  do  either.  John  being  compelled  to 
refuse,  the  pope  pronounced  another  sentence  of  excommu- 
nication against  him,  and  took  immediate  steps  to  stir  up  a 
revolt  against  the  Government,  by  endeavoring  to  increase 
the  dissatisfaction  already  existing  among  the  people.  The 
occasion  was  one  which  displayed  the  towering  ambition  of 
Innocent  III.,  and  developed,  in  a  most  striking  degree,  the 
character  of  the  papal  policy,  which,  under  like  circumstan- 
ces, would  be  developed  in  the  same  way  to-day  or  to-mor- 
row. Pretending  that  the  refusal  of  the  king  to  do  what  he 
knew  he  had  no  power  to  do  was  rebellion  against  his  au- 
thority as  God's  vicegerent,  he  fulminated  a  terrible  bull, 
absolving  the  English  people  from  their  allegiance  to  the 
crown,  and  commanding  them,  upon  pain  of  excommunica- 
tion, no  longer  to  obey  their  king  !(^'^) 

An  event  so  remote  as  this  would  seem,  at  first  glance,  to 
have  no  special  relation  to  the  present  times ;  but  when  it 
is  observed  that  Innocent  acted  under  a  claim  of  divine  right 
and  of  infallibility,  and  that  the  present  pope  sets  up  precise- 
ly the  same  claim,  it  is  of  the  highest  importance  that  the 
principle  upon  which  he  based  his  supposed  right  to  release 
the  English  people  from  their  allegiance  to  their  own  Gov- 

(^)  "He  absolved  the  vassals  of  John  from  their  oaths  of  fealty,  and  ex- 
horted all  Christian  princes  and  barons  to  unite  in  dethroning  the  king,  and 
in  substituting  another  more  worthy,  by  the  authority  of  the  Apostolic  See." 
— History  of  England,  by  Lingard,  vol.  ii.,  p.  163. 


ALLEGIANCE  RELEASED  BY  INNOCENT  IIL  447 

ernment  should  be  well  understood.  What  Innocent  III. 
then  did  in  England,  Pope  Pius  IX.  undoubtedly  thinks  he 
has  the  power  and  right  to  do  in  all  the  governments  now 
existing.  For  that  purpose  the  late  Lateran  Council  enacted 
the  decree  of  infallibility.  In  ascertaining  this  principle  of 
papal  usurpation  we  are  not  confined  to  Protestant  authori- 
ty. It  is  distinctly  avowed  by  one  of  the  most  distinguish- 
ed Roman  Catholic  authors  —  one  whose  "History  of  En- 
gland" is  recommended  to  the  faithful  in  the  United  States. 
Linofard,  referrins:  to  the  relations  between  Innocent  III.  and 
King  John,  states  the  ground  upon  which  the  former  act- 
ed, as  avowed  by  himself,  in  interfering  with  the  dispute  be- 
tween John  and  the  King  of  France  —  a  matter  purely  tem- 
poral. He  says  that  in  this  explicit  statement  is  set  forth 
"more  plainly  than  any  speculations  of  modern  writers,  the 
real  ground  on  which  the  popes  assumed  their  pretended  au- 
thority in  temporal  matters;"  and,  therefore,  the  language  of 
the  pope  is  the  more  worthy  of  careful  scrutiny.  He  gives 
the  following  as  the  reasons  by  which  Innocent  justified  him- 
self: 

"  He  first  transcribes  the  following  passage  from  the  Gos- 
pel :  *  If  thy  brother  trespass  against  thee,  go  and  tell  him 

his  fault  between  him  and  thee  alone ,  and  if  he  will  not 

hear  thee,  then  take  with  thee  one  or  two  more ;  and  if 

he  shall  neglect  to  hear  them,  tell  it  unto  the  Church ;  but 
if  he  neglect  to  hear  the  Church,  let  him  be  unto  thee  as  an 
heathen  man  and  a  publican  {Matthew  xviii.,  15-1 7).'  'Now,' 
he  [Innocent]  proceeds,  'the  King  of  England  maintains  that 
the  King  of  France,  by  enforcing  the  execution  of  an  unjust 
sentence,  has  trespassed  against  him.  He  has,  therefore,  ad- 
monished him  of  his  fault  in  the  manner  prescribed  by  the 
Gospel ;  and  meeting  with  no  redress,  has,  according  to  the 
direction  of  the  same  Gospel,  appealed  to  the  Church.  How, 
then,  can  we,  whom  Divine  Providence  has  placed  at  the  head 
of  the  Church,  refuse  to  obey  the  Dwine  command?  How 
can  we  hesitate  to  proceed  according  to  the  form  pointed 

out  by  Christ  himself? We  do  not  arrogate  to  ourselves 

the  right  of  judgment  as  to  the  fee — that  belongs  to  the  King 
of  France.  But  we  have  a  right  to  judge  respecting  the  sin; 
and  that  right  it  is  our  duty  to  exercise  against  the  offend- 


448  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

er,  be  he  who  he  may By  the  imperial  law  it  has  been 

provided  that,  if  one  of  two  litigant  parties  prefer  the  judg- 
ment of  the  Apostolic  See  to  that  of  the  civil  magistrate 
{apud  Grat.,  cans,  ii.,  9,  i.  can.,  35),  the  other  shall  be  bound  to 
submit  to  such  judgment.  But  if  we  mention  this,  it  is  not 
that  we  found  our  jurisdiction  on  any  civil  authority.  God 
has  made  it  our  duty  to  reprehend  the  man  who  falls  into 
mortal  sin,  and,  if  he  neglect  our  reprehension,  to  compel  him 
to  amend  by  ecclesiastical  censures.  Moreover,  both  kings 
have  sworn  to  observe  the  late  treaty  of  peace,  and  yet  Phil- 
ip has  broken  that  treaty.  The  cognizance  of  perjury  is  uni- 
versally allowed  to  belong  to  the  ecclesiastical  courts.  On 
this  account,  therefore,  we  have  also  a  right  to  call  the  par- 
ties before  our  tribunal.' "(") 

And  soon  after,  in  explanation  of  the  bull  of  Innocent 
releasing  the  English  people  from  their  allegiance,  Lingard 
says: 

" Innocent  grounded  his  temporal  pretensions  on  the 

right  which  he  possessed  of  judging  of  sin,  and  of  the  obli- 
gation of  oaths At  first,  indeed,  the  popes  contented 

themselves  with  spiritual  censures ;  but  in  an  age  when  all 
notions  of  justice  were  remodeled  after  the  feudal  jurispru- 
dence, it  was  soon  admitted  that  princes,  by  their  disobedi- 
ence, became  traitors  to  God  ;  that  as  traitors,  they  ought  to 
forfeit  their  kingdoms,  the  fees  which  they  held  of  God,  and 
that  to  pronounce  such  sentence  belonged  to  the  pontiff,  the 
vicegerent  of  Christ  upon  earth.  By  these  means  the  serv- 
ant of  the  servants  of  God  [the  pope]  became  the  sovereign 
of  the  sovereigns,  and  assumed  the  right  of  judging  them 
in  his  court,  and  of  transferring  their  crowns  as  he  thought 
just."("). 

Now,  if  the  reader  will  examine  the  first  of  these  extracts, 
wherein  Lingard  quotes  the  language  of  Innocent,  he  will  see 
that  the  latter  derives  his  extraordinary  power  from  the  Gra- 
tian  Decretals,  which,  as  we  have  already  seen,  were  made  up 
of  numerous  gross  and  palpable  forgeries  !  And  if  he  will 
then  take  the  pains  to  examine  any  of  the  recent  encyclicals 

(^^)  "  History  of  England,"  by  Lingard,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  153,  154  (note). 
(") /6iU,p.  ir)3(note). 


PAPAL  TEACHINGS  ALWAYS  THE  SAME.  449 

of  Pius  IX.,  especially  tliat  of  1864,(")  he  will  also  see  that 
the  latter  derives  his  temporal  power,  which  enables  him  to 
require  obedience  of  governments  as  well  as  individuals,  just 
as  Innocent  III.  did,  from  his  divine  authority  to  judge  of 
sin,  and  therefore  from  the  same  False  Decretals  !  When  he 
talked,  in  the  Encyclical  of  1864,  about  having  derived  from 
his  "  predecessors"  jurisdiction  over  "all  heresies  and  errors 
which  are  hostile  to  moral  honesty  and  to  the  eternal  sal- 
vation of  mankind,"  it  was  manifestly  his  intention  to  place 
himself  upon  the  ground  occupied  by  Innocent ;  and  it  is 
equally  manifest  that  the  late  Lateran  Council  intended  to 
affirm  his  claim  of  universal  jurisdiction  over  both  "faith 
and  morals" — that  is,  over  all  the  sins  committed  by  gov- 
ernments or  individuals  —  by  enacting  the  decree  of  infalli- 
bility. It  is  a  common  boast  of  the  papal  writers  that  the 
faith  and  teachings  of  the  Roman  Church  are  immutable — 
that  they  have  always  been,  from  the  beginning,  precisely 
the  same.  Has  not  Pius  IX.,  then,  and  will  not  his  succes- 
sors have,  according  to  its  teachings,  exactly  the  same  pow- 
er to  judge  of  sin,  wheresoever  it  exists,  that  Innocent  III. 
had  ?  Every  thing  now  done  and  said  by  Pius  IX.  and  his 
ultramontane  allies  is  confirmatory  of  the  fact  that  they  so 
understand  the  character  of  the  papal  jurisdiction.  But  this 
question,  the  greatest  of  the  present  age,  is  susceptible  of  a 
more  practical  test. 

Alexander  II.,  at  the  dictation  of  Hildebrand,  took  juris- 
diction over  the  political  affairs  of  England,  and  gave  away 
its  crown  to  William  of  Normandy,  because  Harold  had  vio- 
lated his  oath,  thereby  committing  a  sin.  Pius  IX.  has  de- 
clared, in  almost  every  variety  of  expression,  that  Protestant- 
ism is  a  sin,  and  that  all  the  advancing  nations  and  peoples 
are  acting  in  violation  of  God's  law:  w^hy  may  he  not,  there- 
fore, arraign  them  at  the  bar  of  the  Roman  Curia,  pronounce 
judgment  against  them,  and  dispose  of  them  as  the  interest 
of  the  Church  shall  require?  Innocent  III.  declared  that  he 
did  not  derive  his  jurisdiction  over  nations  from  "any  civil 
authority,"  and  Pius  IX.  has  done  the  same  thing.  They 
J)Oth  assert  the  Divine  right  to  reprehend  sin,  and  to  com- 

C)  Appendix  C. 
29 


450  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

pel  amendment  by  ecclesiastical  censures.  All  this  is  of  the 
faith' and  of  morals,  and,  therefore,  what  they  have  said  is  to 
be  taken  as  said  ex  cathedrd.  Innocent  III.  was  as  infallible 
when  he  released  the  English  people  from  their  allegiance, 
and  declared  that  another  king  than  John  should  be  select- 
ed "  by  the  authority  of  the  Apostolic  See,"  as  Pius  IX.  now 
is  when  he  commands  the  faithful  in  Germany,  Switzerland, 
and  Brazil  to  resist  the  laws  of  their  respective  governments, 
and  calls  such  resistance  the  true  service  of  God.  Therefore, 
the  penalty  for  disobedience  to  the  papal  command  must  be 
the  same  in  each  case  ;  for  the  Church  —  that  is,  the  pope  — 
judges  for  herself  what  she  shall  do,  how  she  shall  do  it,  and 
in  what  manner  a  refusal  to  obey  her  shall  be  punished  ! 
Innocent  III.  made  those  who  disobeyed  him  "traitors  to 
God !"  Are  not  those  who  disobey  Pius  IX.  precisely  the 
same?  Innocent  III.  declared  that  "they  ought  to  forfeit 
their  kingdoms,"  because  they  "  held  of  God,"  against  whom 
they  had  committed  treason;  and  "that  to  pronounce  such 
sentence  belonged  to  the  pontiff,  the  vicegerent  of  Christ  upon 
earth!"  who  was  "the  sovereign  of  the  sovereigns,"  and  had 
"the  right  of  judging  them  in  his  court,  and  of  transferring 
their  crowns  as  he  thought  just !"  If  one  of  the  greatest  of 
the  popes  has  any  authority  in  fixing  the  law  of  the  Church, 
then  this  is  as  much  its  law  to-day  as  it  was  when  it  was  de- 
creed at  the  Vatican ;  and  that  Pius  IX.  and  all  his  Jesuit 
supporters  so  understand  it,  will  not  be  questioned  by  any 
who  will  take  the  pains  to  examine  the  facts.  It  would  re- 
quire a  volume  even  to  compile,  without  comment,  what  has 
been  written  on  this  subject. 

The  Catholic  World  says :  "  While  the  State  has  some 
rights,  she  has  them  only  in  virtue  and  hy  permission  of  the 
superior  authority^  and  that  authority  can  only  he  express- 
ed through  the  Church,  that  is,  through  the  organic  law  in- 
fallibly announced  and  unchangeably  asserted,  regardless  of 
temporal  consequences."(^^) 

Dr.  Brownson  says :  "  No  civil  government,  be  it  a  mon- 
archy, an  aristocracy,  a  democracy,  or  any  possible  combina- 
tion of  any  two  or  all  of  them,  can  be  a  wise,  just,  efficient, 

C)  The  Catholic  World  for  July,  1870,  vol.  xi.,  p.  439. 


CHURCH  AND  STATE  UNITED.  451 

or  durable  government,  governing  for  the  good  of  the  com- 
munity, without  the  Catholic  Church  ;  and  without  the  pa- 
pacy there  is  and  can  be  no  Catholic  Church. "(") 

Then,  as  an  argument  to  enforce  the  proposition  that "  hu- 
man laws  repugnant  to  the  divine  law  have  no  force  what- 
ever, and  are  on  no  account  to  be  obeyed,"  he  proceeds  to 
say: 

"ISTow,  as  all  laws,  as  all  rights,  are  spiritual  or  divine, 
and  as  all  their  vigor,  as  laws,  is  derived  from  the  spiritual 
order,  only  a  spiritual  court,  or  representative  of  the  divine 
order,  is  competent  to  judge  of  them,  define,  declare,  and  ap- 
ply them  to  the  practical  questions  as  they  come  up  in  indi- 
vidual or  social  life.  This  representative  of  the  divine  or- 
der on  earth  is  the  Church,  instituted  by  God  himself  to 
maintain  his  law  in  the  government  of  men  and  nations. 
Hence  the  necessity  of  the  union  of  Church  and  State ;  and 
the  condemnation  in  the  Syllabus  of  those  who  demand  their 
separation  and  the  independence  of  the  State."(^^) 

He  says,  moreover,  that  the  State  "  is  bound  to  protect " 
the  rights  of  the  Church  "  with  physical  force,  if  necessary," 
and  "  to  govern  in  accordance  with  the  divine  law  as  she  in- 
terprets, declares,  and  applies  it."  Also,  that  the  Church 
has  "  the  right  to  call  upon "  a  Catholic  state  to  suppress 
an  insurgent  heresy  or  schism,  and  to  compel  those  who  have 
personally  received  the  faith  to  return  to  the  unity  from 
which  they  have  broken  away."(^^) 

Innumerable  quotations  of  this  kind  could  be  inserted 
here,  but  to  do  so  would  only  be  a  work  of  supererogation. 
It  is  more  satisfactory  to  go  directly  to  the  Vatican,  as  ev- 
ery thing  coming  from  that  quarter  has  upon  it  the  unmis- 
takable stamp  of  pontifical  authority.  In  1870,  Cardinal  An- 
tonelli  issued  an  official  communication  from  Rome,  directed 
to  the  papal  nuncio  at  Paris,  wherein  he  declared  that  "  the 
maxims  and  fundamental  principles  of  the  Church "  were 
derived  from  "  pontifical  constitutions,"  that  is,  decrees  of 
popes,  among  which  is  the  celebrated  bull  UnigenitiLS  of 
Clement  XI. ;  and  then  says : 


Q'')Brownson's  Quarterly  RevieWy  last  series,  January,  1873,  vol.  i,,  p.  10. 
O  Ibid.,  vol.  i.,  p.  12.  (38)  Ibid.,  p.  17. 


452  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWEK. 

"And,  in  truth,  the  Church  has  never  intended,  nor  now 
intends,  to  exercise  any  direct  and  absolute  power  over  the 
political  rights  of  the  State.  Having  received  from  God  the 
lofty  mission  of  guiding  men,  whether  individually  or  con- 
gregated in  society,  to  a  supernatural  end,  she  has  by  that 
very  fact  the  authority  and  the  duty  to  judge  concerning  the 
morality  and  justice  of  all  acts,  internal  and  external,  in  re- 
lation to  their  conformity  with  the  natural  and  divine  law. 
And  as  no  action,  whether  it  be  ordained  by  a  supreme 
power,  or  be  freely  elicited  by  an  individual,  can  be  exempt 
from  this  character  of  morality  and  justice,  so  it  happens 
that  the  judgment  of  the  Church,  though  falling  directly  on 
the  morality  of  the  acts,  indirectly  reaches  over  every  thing 
with  which  that  morality  is  concerned."(*°) 

This  is  distinct  enough  to  convince  the  most  incredulous 
that  it  is  a  fixed  and  well-understood  law  of  the  Roman 
Church,  that  all  individuals  and  societies  and  nations  are 
within  the  circle  of  the  papal  jurisdiction;  and  that  what- 
soever they  may  do  not  compatible  with  God's  law,  as  the 
pope  shall  define  it,  in  the  whole  domain  of  faith  and  morals, 
he  has  the  right  to  condemn,  and  does  condemn,  by  virtue 
of  authority  derived  directly  from  God.  Hence,  it  will  be 
perceived  that  the  law  of  the  Church  is  to-day  just  what  it 
was  announced  to  be  by  Innocent  HI.,  and  that  it  confers 
upon  Pius  IX.  precisely  the  same  authority  which  he  claim- 
ed over  the  crown  of  England,  and  which  Alexander  II.  ex- 
ercised when  he  decided  it  to  belong  to  William  of  Nor- 
mandy. 

The  law  being  the  same,  the  penalty  for  disobedience 
must  be  the  same — for  the  Church  never  changes !  In  any 
given  case  of  disobedience,  whether  by  an  individual  or  a 
nation,  the  act  must  be,  necessarily,  treason  against  God, 
as  Innocent  declared.  The  individual,  for  this  offense,  is  cut 
off"  by  the  sword  of  excommunication  from  all  fellowship 
with  the  faithful,  and  the  doors  of  heaven  are  closed  against 
him  ;  if  he  be  a  civil  ruler,  his  authority  to  govern  is  strick- 
en from  his  hands,  and  those  who  owe  him  obedience  by  the 
laws  of  the  State  are  commanded  not  to  obey  him.     The 

(")  "Vatican  Council,"  by  Archbishop  Manning,  appendix,  p.  185. 


OBEDIENCE  EXACTED  BY  FORCE.  453 

nation,  not  having,  like  the  individual,  a  corporeal  body  to 
be  punished  or  a  soul  to  be  damned,  forfeits  all  rights  to  the 
exercise  of  the  power  out  of  which  its  disobedience  arose, 
and  becomes  thereby  subject  to  the  "  sovereign  of  the  sov- 
ereigns," to  whom  God  has  given  authority  to  pronounce 
judgment  against  it  "  in  his  court,"  and  to  transfer  it  to 
whomsoever  he  shall  think  "just;"  that  is,  to  the  faithful 
who  will  bring  it  into  the  path  of  duty !  And  when  all 
other  remedial  measures  have  failed,  the  Church,  says  Pius 
IX.,  has  the  right  to  avail  "herself  of  force"  to  compel  obe- 
dience !(*^) 

We  are  not  left  to  any  conjecture  in  reference  to  the  pun- 
ishment of  individuals  or  nations  for  the  heresy  of  disobe- 
dience to  the  pope,  which  is  considered  as  disobedience  to 
God.  If  the  doctrine  laid  down  by  Innocent  III.  and  Pius 
IX.  is  not  explicit  enough  on  this  subject,  it  is  so  laid  down 
by  authors  of  recognized  authority,  who  have  compiled  the 
law  of  the  Church,  as  to  leave  no  room  for  cavil.  In  1773,  a 
work  was  published  in  Spain,  written  by  Alfonzo  de  Castro, 
a  learned  friar,  which  was  designed  to  set  forth  the  law  of 
the  Church  for  the  punishment  of  heretics.  These  punish- 
ments he  divides  into  two  classes,  spiritual  and  temporal. 
The  latter  are  defined  to  be  proscription  and  confiscation  of 
property,  and  "  the  deprival  of  every  sort  of  pre-eminence, 
jurisdiction,  and  government,  which  they  previously  exer- 
cised over  persons  of  every  condition."  To  this  class  be- 
long kings  and  those  who  govern  public  affairs.  "A  king," 
says  he,  "  having  become  a  heretic,  is  ipso  jure  deprived  of 
his  kingdom,  a  duke  of  his  dukedom,  an  earl  of  his  earldom, 
and  so  with  other  governors  of  the  people,  by  whatever 
name  they  are  known."  And  this  is  done  by  the  pope,  who 
"deprives  a  king  of  his  royal  dignity,  and  strips  him  of  his 
kingdom  ;  for  in  the  matter  of  faith,  kings,  like  other  subor- 
dinates, are  the  subjects  of  the  sovereign  pontiff,  who  can 
punish  them  as  he  does  others." 

Inasmuch  as  to  deprive  a  ruler  of  his  kingdom,  the  coun- 


(*^)  The  Syllabus  condemns  as  one  of  the  principal  errors  of  the  times  the 
doctrine  that  "the  Church  has  not  the  power  of  availing  herself  oi  force. ^^ 
See  Appendix  D,  paragraph  v.,  sec.  24. 


454  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

try  would  be  left  without  a  governor,  unless  something  more 
were  done,  the  law  goes  a  step  farther.  This  author  states 
it  in  these  words : 

"  If  an  heretical  king  have  no  heir,  or  if  the  heir  he  also  a 
heretic,  then  if  the  nation  he  7iot  infected  with  heresy,  I  should 
say  that  it  has  the  power  and  right  of  electing  the  king,  as 
it  is  said  in  the  First  Book  of  Kings,  'The  people  makes  itself 
a  king.'  But  if  the  people  be  infected  with  the  same  pesti- 
lence (of  heresy)  as  the  king,  the  people  will  be  deprived  ipso 
jure  of  the  power  of  choosing  for  itself  a  king,  and  then  the 
business  will  devolve  on  the  sovereign  pontiff  P'' i^"^) 

And  thus  the  remote  facts  in  English  history,  already  de- 
tailed, connect  themselves  with  our  own  times,  by  the  at- 
tempt of  the  papacy,  under  the  lead  of  the  Jesuits,  to  revive 
the  papal  doctrines  of  the  Middle  Ages,  as  the  means  of  ar- 
resting the  progress  and  advancing  civilization  of  the  nine- 
teenth century.  The  passionate  declamation  of  the  pope, 
and  the  vaporing  of  a  few  hierarchs,  or  all  of  them,  for  that 
matter,  amount  to  nothing  in  the  abstract.  Like  all  others 
of  disappointed  ambition,  they  are  most  prolific  in  terms  of 
denunciation  against  those  who  have  been  driven  out  of  the 
Roman  Church  by  their  severity  and  injustice.  And  if  they 
choose  to  drive  them  still  farther  by  additional  severity 
and  injustice,  and  every  form  of  anathema  and  malediction, 
Protestants  are  not  likely  to  concern  themselves  very  much 
about  it.  But  when  they  impudently  arraign  whole  nations 
of  people,  deny  to  them  the  right  to  govern  their  own  af- 
fairs, pronounce  judgment  against  them  as  heretics  and  trai- 
tors to  God,  and  claim  that  the  pope  has  the  divine  right  to 
set  his  own  rulers  over  them,  it  is  quite  time  for  us  to  un- 
derstand what  is  to  be  the  effect  of  all  this  upon  the  future 
destiny  of  our  own  country.  But  this  question  can  be  more 
satisfactorily  considered  when  we  shall  have  learned  some- 
thing more  of  the  working  of  the  papal  system,  which  we 
are  now  asked  to  adopt  in  preference  to  that  which  has 
placed  us  in  so  eminent  a  position  among  the  nations. 

(*'') -<4joMc/ Dr.  Gumming.  See  his  "Lectures  on  Romanism," iu  London, 
in  explanation  of  the  teaching  of  Cardinal  Wiseman,  pp.  55,  56. 


THE  ENGLISH  BARONS.  455 


CHAPTER  XV. 

The  Pope  turns  England  over  to  France. — Resistance  of  the  Barons. — John 
resigns  the  Crown  to  the  Pope. — Langton. — Charter  of  Henry  I. — Barons 
form  a  League. — Langton  supports  the  Barons. — Magna  Charta. — John 
swears  to  obey  it. — Tiie  Pope  releases  Him,  and  annuls  the  Charter. — 
He  claims  England  as  a  Fief. — Foreign  Mercenaries. — Henry  HI. — Ital- 
ian and  Foreign  Priests.  —  King  promises  to  observe  the  Charter. — The 
Pope  again  releases  Him. — Appeals  to  Rome. — Peter- pence. — Immuni- 
ties of  Clergy. — They  murder  with  Impunity. — House  of  Commons  estab- 
lished.— Pope  again  releases  the  King  from  his  Oath. — Civil  War. — The 
Barons  defeated. — Their  Treatment  by  the  King  and  Pope. — Edward  I. 
confirms  the  Charter.  —  The  Pope  releases  Him.  —  Edward  II.  —  The 
Statutes  of  Provisors  and  of  Prjemunire. — The  Lollards. — Law  for  burning 
Heretics. — William  Sawtre  and  Thomas  Badby  burned. — Lollards  attack- 
ed.— Clergy  exempt  from  Punishment  in  Secular  Courts. — Their  Corrup- 
tion and  that  of  the  Popes. — Urban  V.  and  Gregory  XL— Popes  and  Anti- 
popes. —  Scandalous  and  Disgraceful  Conduct.  —  Gregory  XII.  Pope  at 
Rome,  and  Benedict  XIII.  at  Avignon. — Both  declared  Infamous  by  the 
Council  of  Pisa.  —  Alexander  V. — John  XXIII.  deposed  for  Enormous 
Crimes  by  Council  of  Constance. — Martin  V. — Influence  upon  the  Church. 
— Corruption  almost  Universal. — The  Fruits  of  the  False  Decretals. 

The  condition  into  which  King  John  was  thrown  by  the 
attempt  of  Innocent  III.  to  stir  up  an  insurrection  in  England 
against  his  authority  was  embarrassing  in  an  extreme  de- 
gree. He  had  incurred  the  animosity  of  the  Norman  bar- 
ons, who,  after  having  at  first  entertained  hostility  toward 
the  native  Britons  and  the  Saxons,  had  become  reconciled  to 
both,  and  were  anxious  to  defend  and  share  with  them  their 
ancient  rights  and  privileges.  These  barons  were  Roman 
Catholics  in  all  the  essentials  of  religious  faith  ;  but  as  they 
found  nothing  in  that  faith,  when  uncontaminated  by  the 
influence  of  the  papacy,  requiring  them  to  submit  passively 
to  the  tyranny  of  either  kings  or  popes,  they  became  early 
impressed  with  the  necessity  of  adopting  such  measures  as 
would  teach  their  rulers  that  the  English  people  had  some 
rights  they  were  bound  to  respect.  The  occasion  afforded 
them  an  opportunity  of  seeking  to  avenge  themselves  upon 


456  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

the  king  for  the  injuries  he  had  inflicted  upon  them  in  a  pre- 
vious part  of  his  reign;  and  as  the  power  of  the  crown,  when 
backed  by  that  of  the  papacy,  was  too  strong  for  resistance 
by  any  ordinary  means,  they  began  to  combine  with  a  view 
to  his  expulsion  from  the  throne,  and  the  election  of  another 
king  more  favorable  to  the  people.  The  pope,  taking  advan- 
tage of  this  disaflection,  and  supposing  that  there  existed 
no  further  impediment  to  the  consummation  of  his  plans,  is- 
sued another  bull  deposing  John,  and  empowering  the  King 
of  France  to  put  the  sentence  into  execution!  Of  course  the 
King  of  France,  faithful  as  he  was  to  the  Church,  did  not 
act  altogether  out  of  religious  motives;  nor  did  the  pope,  al- 
though he  claimed  to  be  employing  a  divine  power  only  for 
the  good  of  the  Church,  address  himself  to  any  such  motive. 
The  pretext  of  the  good  of  the  Church  was,  on  the  part  of 
both,  the  mere  cover  for  ambition  of  the  baser  sort.  There- 
fore, we  find  the  pope  promising  the  French  king,  as  a  re- 
ward for  his  aggressive  interference  with  the  aftairs  of  En- 
gland, "  the  remission  of  all  his  si?is,  together  with  the  crown 
of  England^  when  once  he  had  dethroned  the  tyrant."(^)  It 
was  scarcely  possible  to  make  a  more  bountiful  bestowal  of 
pontifical  favor.  In  one  breath  the  sins  of  a  whole  life-time 
were  forgiven,  and,  in  the  next,  the  crown  of  a  nation  was 
given  away !  The  pope  had  about  as  much  right  to  do  the 
one  as  the  other:  the  first  was  an  assumption  of  a  preroga- 
tive which  belongs  to  God  alone ;  the  second  was  a  crimi- 
nal violation  of  the  law  of  nations.  Both  acts,  under  the 
pretense  of  Divine  sanction,  were  impious.  But  the  King 
of  France  readily  accepted  the  proposition,  and  commenced 
military  preparations  to  carry  it  into  execution.  The  pope, 
however,  was  too  cunning  a  politician  to  permit  measures  to 
be  carried  to  extremes,  so  long  as  there  was  a  possibility  of 
accomplishing  his  ends  by  other  means;  for  he  was  sagacious 
enough  to  see  that  with  Philip  of  France  in  possession  of  the 
English  throne  he  might  have  an  adversary  far  more  formi- 
dable than  John  to  deal  with.  Accordingly,  he  sent  a  leg- 
ate to  John  to  excite  his  fears  by  telling  him  that  the  bar- 
ons would  take  the  side  of  Philip,  and  to  remind  him  of  his 

Q)  "History  of  England,"  by  Rapin,  vol.  iii.,  p.  203. 


JOHN  GIVES  THE  CROWN  TO  THE  POPE.  457 

unpopularity  with  the  people.  He  hoped  to  bring  John  to 
terms  without  complying  with  his  promise  to  Philip;  for, 
like  many  other  popes,  he  always  interpreted  the  law  of 
God  as  if  it  had  been  made  flexible  and  yielding,  merely  for 
the  purpose  of  advancing  the  papal  ambition.  As  the  cour- 
age of  John  had  already  begun  to  fail,  the  legate  had  little 
difiiculty  in  impressing  his  mind  with  the  views  of  the  pope, 
who,  notwithstanding  the  anathema  of  the  Church  rested 
upon  Johr^'s  head,  was  still  willing  to  treat  with  an  excom- 
municated heretic,  if  thereby  he  could  add  to  the  power  of 
the  papacy.  When  the  legate,  therefore,  found  that  John 
had  become  alarmed  at  the  formidable  alliance  against  him, 
he  developed  the  whole  papal  plan  by  telling  him  that  his 
only  remedy  was  to  put  himself  wholly  under  the  protec- 
tion of  the  pope,  which  he  could  do  by  becoming  a  dutiful 
son  of  the  Church,  and  by  promising  to  perform  whatsoev- 
er the  pope  should  enjoin  upon  him !  John,  caught  in  the 
papal  net,  finally  consented  to  these  humiliating  terms,  and 
agreed  to  take  the  necessary  oath.  However,  when  the  leg- 
ate came  to  explain  the  terras  of  the  surrender,  he  insisted 
that  as  John's  offenses  were  "  against  God  and  the  Church !" 
— as  all  offenses  against  the  papacy  are  yet  regarded  by  the 
advocates  of  infallibility  —  he  must  also  resign  the  crown 
into  the  pope's  hands !  Forced  by  the  seeming  necessity 
of  his  condition,  and  with  his  spirit  crushed  by  the  violence 
of  pontifical  wrath,  John  consented  even  to  this ;  and,  pub- 
licly taking  the  crown  from  his  head,  laid  it  at  the  feet  of 
the  legate  !  He  then  signed  a  charter,  resigning  to  the  pope 
the  kingdom  of  England  and  the  lordship  of  Ireland  !(*) 

And  thus  the  King  of  England  became  a  vassal  of  the 
Pope  of  Rome,  promising  to  pay  a  thousand  marks  a  year 
in  money,  and  binding  all  his  successors  to  like  obedience ! 
And  all  this  was  done  without  any  regard  whatever  to  the 
interest  or  wishes  of  the  people,  who,  under  the  impious  pre- 
tense that  God  required  it,  were  transferred  from  one  des- 
pot to  another,  like  cattle  sold  in  the  public  market.  And 
thus  Pope  Innocent  III.,  by  virtue  of  authority  derived  from 
the  Forged  Decretals,  planted  his  feet  upon  the  necks  of  the 

C)  Kapin,  vol.  iii.,  p.  208  ;  Lingavd,  vol.  ii.,  p.  165  ;  Appendix,  note,  D. 


458  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

English  people.  Even  Lingard,  conscious  of  the  iniquity  of 
the  act,  can  not  refrain  from  saying  that  "  this  transaction 
has  heaped  everlasting  infamy  on  the  memory  of  John ;" 
and  he  might,  with  equal  propriety  and  justice,  have  added, 
like  infamy  upon  the  memory  of  Innocent  III.,  who  planned, 
plotted,  and  contrived  it  by  fraud,  usurpation,  and  deceit 
— all  covered  up  under  the  flimsy  disguise  of  infallibility. 
And  yet,  infamous  as  it  was,  it  is  not  at  all  too  strong  to 
say  that  Pius  IX.  would  avail  himself  of  the  samp  disguise, 
to-day  or  to-morrow,  to  do  the  same  thing  in  England  or  the 
United  States,  or  in  any  other  country,  under  like  favorable 
circumstances. 

John  having  thus  traded  away  the  crown  to  the  pope, 
to  the  disgrace  of  both  seller  and  buyer,  the  dissatisfaction 
against  him  became  intense  throughout  the  kingdom.  Lang- 
ton,  though  the  pope's  legate,  sympathized  with  the  barons; 
and,  in  order  to  stimulate  their  zeal,  he  made  known  to  them 
the  existence  of  an  old  charter  granted  by  Henry  I.,  a  fact 
which  was  of  the  utmost  importance  to  their  cause,  but  of 
which  they  were  previously  ignorant. f)  Thus  notified  of 
this  important  grant,  the  barons  were  easily  induced  to  en- 
ter into  a  league  or  confederacy  to  secure  a  greater  degree 
of  independence,  upon  the  basis  of  the  old  Saxon  liberties. 
When  this  movement  was  made  known  to  the  pope,  he  was 
gratified ;  not  because  he  desired  or  intended  that  the  bar- 
ons should  obtain  any  additional  liberties,  but  because  he 
hoped  that  the  breach  between  them  and  the  king  would 
become  so  irreconcilable  that  they  could  not  unite  against 
him ;  for  he  understood  perfectly  well  that  if  the  king  and 
the  barons  were  united  in  opposition  to  him,  they  could 
soon  terminate  all  his  usurped  authority  in  England.  But 
Langton  understood  the  policy  and  schemings  of  the  crafty 
pope,  and  was  determined  that  his  countrymen  should  not 

(^)  Heniy  I.,  in  order  to  obtain  possession  of  the  crown,  promised  to  abro- 
gate all  rigorous  laws  made  after  the  Conquest,  and  to  restore  the  Govern- 
ment to  the  condition  in  which  it  was  under  the  first  Saxon  kings.  This  he 
did  by  granting  a  charter,  renouncing  the  unjust  prerogatives  usurped  by 
William  the  Conqueror,  and  by  William  II.,  his  (Henry  I.'s)  immediate  pred- 
ecessor.— Rapin,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  323-326.  For  copy  of  this  charter  see  Thierry, 
vol.  i.,  p.  344  (note). 


STEPHEN  LANGTON.  459 

be  deprived  of  their  ancient  Saxon  liberties,  since  they  were 
preparing  to  make  such  noble  eiforts  for  their  restoration. 
He  was  familiar  enough  with  the  papacy  to  foresee  the  deg- 
radation into  which  they  would  be  plunged  if  the  pope 
should  secure  his  triumph.     And  he,  accordingly,  brought 
himself  under  the  suspicion  of  the  pope,  who  sent  another 
legate  into  England,  and  demanded  a  seco7id  resignation  of 
the  crown  by  John,  and  an  additional  treaty,  sealed  witli 
gold  instead  of  wax.     When  this  demand  was  made,  the 
king,  already  humiliated  to  an  unparalleled  degree,  consent- 
ed to  it;  but  Langton  protested  against  it,  because  it  was 
apparent  that  the  pope  had  by  this  time  resolved  to  oppose 
the  cause  of  the  barons,  and  had  promised  to  protect  John 
asfainst  their  demand  for  their  ancient  liberties.     Lang^ton's 
protestation  greatly  incensed  the  pope,  who  could  not  un- 
derstand how  a  papal  legate  could  espouse  the  cause  of  En- 
glish liberty ;  but  he  was  afraid  to  proceed  immediately  to 
extremities  for  fear  of  open  resistance  by  the  people,  who 
were  now  beginning  to  learn  something  of  the  rights  out  of 
which  they  had  been  cheated  by  treacherous  rulers,  under 
the  dictation   of  equally  treacherous  popes.      The   barons 
were  not  appeased  by  the  conduct  of  either  the  king  or  the 
pope,  but  renewed  their  league,  and  courageously  resolved 
to  demand  the  re-establishment  of  the  charter  of  Henry  I. 
When  they  made  this  demand  of  the  king,  he,  backed  by 
the  pope,  refused  it.     They  then  took  up  arms,  acquired 
possession  of  London,  and  besieged  the    king  in  the  Tow- 
er.    Were  they  justified  in  this?    Undoubtedly  they  were. 
There  are  two  kinds  of  government — one  of  law,  the  other 
of  force.     When  the  latter  seizes  upon  and  destroys  the 
natural  and  inalienable  liberties  of  a  people,  they  have  the 
right  to  re-assert  them  by  whatsoever  degree  of  force  may 
be  necessary  to  resist  the  usurpation.     In  that  condition  the 
English  people  were  then  placed.     Their  former  freedom 
had  been  guaranteed  to  them  by  all  the  proper  forms  of 
law ;  and  when  kings  and  popes,  by  unrighteous  combina- 
tions, had  disregarded  the  law  and  set  it  aside,  they  were 
justified  in  resuming  their  position  of  independence,  even  at 
the  sword's  point.     And  the  barons  showed  themselves  ca- 
pable of  performing  this  great  work,  for  they  soon  compel- 


460  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

led  the  king  to  sign  two  charters,  one  of  which  was  the 
Charter  of  Liberties,  or  Magna  Charta,  which  is  yet  regard- 
ed as  the  foundation  of  the  present  liberties  of  England"  and 
the  United  States.     Being  afraid  to  trust  the  kin|,  the  bar- 
ons required  him  to  take  an  oath  to  observe  these  charters, 
which  he  did  in  the  most  solemn  form.     But  circumstances 
soon  transpired  to  show  that,  notwithstanding  the  solemnity 
with  which  this  oath  had  been  taken,  he  did  not  intend  to 
be  bound  by  it.     It  was  considered  an  essential  part  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  "divine  right"  of  kings,  that  they  were  not 
bound  by  any  promise  made  by  them  to  the  people,  in  whose 
hands  none  of  the  powers  of  government  were  lodged  ;  and 
if  this  convenient  method  of  escape  from  the  obligation  of 
an  oath  had  not  been  provided,  the  dispensing  power  of  the 
pope,  as  God's  vicegerent  (!),  was  always  at  hand  to  release 
the  representatives  of  absolutism  from  all  such  obligations, 
whenever  the  interest  of  the  papacy  required  it.     In  this 
particular  instance  King  John  was  stimulated  to  the  viola- 
tion of  his  oath  by  the  foreigners  who  were  about  his  court, 
and  who  had  been  sent  into  England  by  the  pope  to  aid 
him  in  oppressing  the  people  by  the  exercise  of  ecclesiastic- 
al authority,  under  the  canons  of  the  Roman  Church,  and 
who  were  assiduous  in  their  efforts  to  become  the  masters 
of  the  country.^     These  ecclesiastics  assisted  the  king  to 
raise  foreign  troops  to  resist  the  barons,  because  such  troops, 
being  merely  mercenaries,  and  having  no  sympathies  with 
the  English  people,  were  always  ready  to  enlist  in  any  cause 
which  promised  them  remuneration,  whether  in  the  form  of 
money  or  booty.     The  king,  however,  while  employing  these 
means  of  subjugating  his  own  people,  called  also  upon  the 
pope  for  assistance.     He  sent  to  him  copies  of  the  charters 
he  had  granted  the  barons,  in  order  to  show  how  much  they 
encroached  upon  the  royal  and  pontifical  authority,  and  ask- 
ed that  he  be  absolved  from  his  oath  to  observe  them— that 
is,  that  the  pope,  as  God's  representative,  should  release  him 
from  the  obligation  to  obey  a  promise  solemnly  made  to  his 
own  countrymen  concerning  their  own   domestic  laws  and 
policy !     The  pope  was  greatly  incensed  at  the  barons  for 

(*)  Rapin,  vol.  iii.,  p.  228. 


THE  POPE  ANNULS  MAGNA  CHARTA.  461 

having  dared  to  assert  such  liberties  for  themselves  and  the 
people,  understanding  perfectly  well  that  such  a  concession 
would  lead  to  a  demand  for  others.  And  "  in  his  rage  he 
swore  [by  St.  Peter]  that,  cost  him  what  it  would,  he  would 
never  suffer  their  rashness  to  go  unpunished."(^)  He  annul- 
led the  charters,  absolved  the  king  from  his  oath,  and  wrote 
to  the  barons  commanding  them  to  renounce  what  they  had 
extorted  from  John,  as  the  only  means  of  escaping  the  pon- 
tifical wrath. 

Lingard  comes  to  our  assistance  again,  by  furnishing  us 
the  reasons  which  influenced  Innocent  III.  in  this  addition- 
al act  of  interference  with  English  affairs.  After  naming 
several,  such  as  the  violation  of  their  fealty  to  the  king  by 
the  barons,  the  fact  that  they  had  presumed  to  sit  in  judg- 
ment upon  the  conduct  of  their  king,  and  the  additional 
fact  that  John  had  agreed  to  take  part  in  the  Crusades, 
and  was  therefore  entitled  to  protection,  he  proceeds  to 
say: 

"  Lastly,  England  was  become  the  fief  of  the  Holy  See, 
and  they  [the  barons]  could  not  be  ignorant  that  if  the  king 
had  the  will,  he  had  not,  at  least,  the  power,  to  give  away 
the  rights  of  the  crown  without  the  consent  of  his  feudal  su- 
perior [the  pope].  He  [the  pope]  was  therefore  bound  to  an- 
nul the  concessions  which  had  been  extorted  from  John,  as 
having  been  obtained  in  contempt  of  the  Holy  See,  to  the 
degradation  of  royalty,  to  the  disgrace  of  the  nation,  and  to 
the  impediment  of  the  Crusade."(^) 

Could  any  thing  show  more  satisfactorily  the  nature  of 
the  divine  power  over  the  temporal  affairs  of  nations,  exer- 
•  cised  by  Innocent  HI.,  and  now  re-asserted  by  Pius  IX.?  In 
this  particular  case  it  went  to  the  extent  of  claiming  plenary 
jurisdiction  over  the  entire  domestic  policy  of  the  kingdom, 
by  denying  to  the  king  any  power  to  grant  additional  liber- 
ties to  the  English  people  without  the  consent  of  the  pope ! 
It  assumed  that  King  John,  without  the  consent  of  the  na- 
tion, could  make  England  a  fief  to  the  pope,  and  lay  its  crown 
at  his  feet,  but  could  do  no  act  tending  to  give  the  people  the 


O  Rapin,  vol.  iii.,  p.  230. 

C)  "History  of  England,"  by  Lingard,  vol.  ii.,  p.  181. 


462  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

right  to  be  consulted  about  the  laws  by  which  they  were  to 
be  governed  !  It  attempted  to  legitimate  the  highest  crime 
which  a  king  can  commit — the  treacherous  surrender  of  his 
crown — by  covering  it  up  under  the  divine  sanction,  as  if  God 
had  designed  that  the  papacy  should  be  built  up  by  the  sacri- 
fice of  all  truth,  justice,  and  honor!  It  was  such  an  act  of 
deep  and  indelible  infamy  as  time  can  not  wipe  out.  And 
why  are  we,  in  this  age,  justified  in  so  considering  it?  Not 
merely  because  the  precedent  thus  established  has  furnished 
a  rule  of  action  for  other  popes,  in  their  attempts  to  subordi- 
nate all  nations  and  peoples  to  themselves,  but  for  other  rea- 
sons which  will  readily  occur  to  a  thoughtful  mind.  Magna 
Charta  shines  as  a  bright  light  in  history.  It  was  the  be- 
ginning of  that  great  uprising  of  the  English  people  which 
enabled  them  to  take  the  lead  among  the  advancing  nations. 
It  is  the  corner-stone  of  all  popular  government  as  it  now 
exists ;  and  but  for  it,  kingly  and  papal  absolutism  might  be 
to-day  holding  its  universal  carnival.  And  yet  we  are  told 
by  an  infallible  pope  that  such  an  act,  so  glorious  in  all  its 
consequences,  was  "in  contempt  of  the  Holy  See!"  Why? 
Because  it  tended  "  to  the  degradation  of  royalty,"  by  put- 
ting into  the  hands  of  the  people  rights  which  they  derived 
from  God  and  nature  ! 

John,  thus  released  from  the  obligation  of  his  oath  by  the 
dispensing  power  of  the  pope,  set  on  foot  an  army  of  foreign- 
ers to  punish  the  barons  and  ravage  the  country.  The  bar- 
ons defied  the  thunders  of  the  pope  and  the  armies  of  the 
king.  The  latter  had  no  higher  object  than  plunder,  and 
the  eflTect  was  that  the  country  was  reduced  to  a  most  de- 
plorable condition — the  private  property  of  the  barons  being 
seized  and  appropriated  by  foreign  mercenaries.  The  pope 
excommunicated  the  barons,  merely  because  they  were  un- 
willing to  be  made  slaves,  and  not  for  any  violation  of  their 
religious  faith.  He  ordered  Langton,  his  legate,  to  publish 
the  bull  of  excommunication  in  England  to  intimidate  the 
barons.  But  Langton,  though  faithful  to  his  religion,  had  not 
forgotten  that  he  was  an  Englishman ;  and  he  refused  to  per- 
form the  degrading  and  disgraceful  act.  And  for  this  act  of 
devotion  to  his  native  country  he  was  suspended  by  the  pope 
from  the  Archbishopric  of  Canterbury,  which  was  designed 


BARONS  DENY  THE  TEMPORAL  POWER.  463 

to  stamp  him  with  the  indelible  mark  of  disgrace. Q  The 
bull,  however,  was  published,  but  the  barons  again  defied  it, 
because  they  were  not  particularly  named  in  it.  The  pope, 
to  remove  this  objection,  issued  another,  excommunicating 
them  by  name,  and  putting  their  lands,  as  well  as  the  city 
of  London  —  which  took  the  side  of  the  barons — under  in- 
terdict. Again  they  refused  obedience,  declaring,  in  the  spir- 
it of  true  Englishmen,  that  "  it  was  not  the  pope's  business 
to  meddle  with  temporal  affairs,  seeing  that  St.  Peter  had  re- 
ceived from  Christ  none  but  spiritual  power :  for  which  rea- 
son it  was  neither  just  nor  right  that  Christians  should  suf- 
fer themselves  to  be  swayed  by  the  ambition  and  avarice  of 
popes.''^)  They  were  Roman  Catholics  in  religious  faith, 
strongly  attached  to  their  Church  and  the  traditions  of  its 
early  purity  and  greatness,  but  were  unwilling  to  surrender 
the  independence  of  their  country  to  either  a  treacherous 
king  or  a  domineering  pope.  They  were  resolved  that  they 
would  not  become  the  mere  slaves  to  the  temporal  power 
which  Innocent  III.  claimed  the  divine  right  to  exercise 
over  them.  And  they  were  determined  to  stand  by  and  to 
restore  the  liberties  which  they  considered  the  birthright  of 
the  English  people.  They  did  this  with  a  courage  which 
has  endeared  to  every  lover  of  popular  liberty  the  memo- 
ry of  these  hardy  but  unlettered  old  barons,  who  defied  not 
only  the  king,  but  one  of  the  most  powerful  and  ambitious 
of  the  popes.  Their  firm  adherence  to  their  demand  for 
freedom  kept  the  principles  of  English  liberty  alive  in  the 
minds  of  the  people,  who  had  never  yet  forgotten  their  an- 

C)  The  Catholic  World,  in  an  article  on  "The  Spirit  of  Protestantism," 
makes  an  enumeration  of  the  "beneficent  results"  which  have  been  "di- 
rectly and  indirectly  the  work  of  the  Catholic  Church."  Among  other  things, 
such  as  the  Crusades  and  the  discovery  of  America  by  Columbus,  it  points 
with  exulting  pride  "to  Archbishop  Langton  framing  Magna  Charta!  !  !" — 
The  Catholic  World,  December,  1872,  vol.  xvi.,  p.  290.  Lingard,  referring 
to  the  refusal  of  Langton  to  publish  the  bull,  and  his  suspension  in  conse- 
quence, says  that  he  visited  Rome,  but  failed  to  "mollify  the  pontiff,  or  recov- 
er the  exercise  of  his  authority." — History  of  England,  by  Lingard,  vol.  ii., 
p.  182.  Some  papal  writers  set  down  Magna  Charta  itself  to  the  credit  of 
the  Church,  because  the  barons  were  Roman  Catholics !  Much  that  passes 
for  history  is  made  in  that  way. 

O  Rapin,  vol.  iii.,  p.  233. 


464  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

cient  Christianity  or  the  teachings  of  their  Saxon  ancestors. 
These  principles  survived  every  shock  they  received,  and  en- 
abled the  people  to  bear  themselves  up  under  every  load 
of  oppression  with  which  kings  and  popes  endeavored  to 
crush  them.  Pope  Innocent  III.  and  King  John  have  pass- 
ed away.  Of  the  former,  it  is  related  by  a  Roman  Catholic 
pen  that,  after  death,  he  was  seen  in  a  vision  by  St.  Lut- 
garde,  a  nun,  to  whom  he  said  that  "he  could  not  enter  heav- 
en until  the  day  of  the  last  judgment,  and  after  having  suf- 
fered tortures  incomprehensible  by  the  human  mind,"  on 
account  of  the  monstrous  enormity  of  his  crimes.  (^)  The 
world's  greatest  bard,  in  almost  the  last  words  put  into  the 
mouth  of  the  latter,  makes  him  say, 

"  Within  me  is  a  hell ;  and  there  the  poison 
Is,  as  a  fiend,  confined  to  tyrannize 
On  unreprievable,  condemned  blood." 

Yet  the  principles  of  Magna  Charta  have  lived,  grown,  and 
expanded,  and  will  continue  to  live,  grow,  and  expand  until 
all  the  chains  of  absolutism  shall  have  been  broken,  and  there 
shall  be  no  bands  upon  either  the  limbs  or  minds  of  men. 

During  the  subsequent  reign  of  Henry  III. — one  of  the 
most  disgraceful  in  English  history — the  liberties  of  the 
people  were  almost  entirely  destroyed.  The  popes,  by  the 
appointment  of  Italian  ecclesiastics,  had  created  in  England 
an  army  of  foreign  priests,  who  were  exclusively  devoted  to 
Kome,  who  had  no  sympathies  in  common  with  the  English 
people,  and  who,  scattered  all  over  the  country,  impoverish- 
ed it  by  their  enormous  exactions  of  money. ("*)  The  king, 
obeying  the  pope,  also  made  an  eflfort  to  annul  the  Great 
Charter,  although  he  had  solemnly  promised,  at  the  begin- 
ning of  his  reign,  to  observe  it.  He  excused  himself  for  this 
attempt  to  violate  his  promise,  upon  the  ground  that  he  was 

O  Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  464. 

("•)  The  pope,  at  one  time,  nominated  three  hundred  Itah'an  priests  to  va- 
cant benefices  in  England.  And  so  numerous  did  these  foreigners  become, 
that  their  annual  income  extorted  from  the  people  amoimted  to  seventy  thou- 
sand marks— over  $230,000— while  the  revenue  of  the  crown,  levied  Vor  the 
support  of  the  Government,  scarcely  exceeded  one-third  of  that  sum  I — Ha- 
piN,  vol.  iii. ,  pp.  349-398. 


PAPAL  ENORMITIES  IN  ENGLAND.  4G5 

a  minor  when  it  was  made !  The  pope  and  tlie  king  "  mu- 
tually stood  by  one  another  whenever  tlie  business  was  to 
extort  money  "from  the  people.  (^^)  The  pope  made  every 
possible  effort  to  alienate  the  affections  of  the  king  from  his 
English  subjects,  by  causing  him  to  call  still  more  foreign- 
ers devoted  to  the  papacy  to  assist  liim  in  conducting  pub- 
lic affairs.('^)  And  when  Parliament  complained  of  this,  the 
Bishop  of  Winchester,  speaking  for  the  pope,  rebuked  them 
upon  the  ground  that  it  was  an  encroachment  upon  the  roy- 
al prerogative  !('^)  Nearly  all  the  money  of  the  kingdom 
was  remitted  to  Rome.(^*)  And  the  pope  acquired  such 
power  over  Henry  that,  under  threat  of  excommunication, 
he  obtained  a  renewal  of  the  concession  of  John,  that  the 
crown  should  remain  in  vassalage  to  the  Holy  See.('^)  The 
English  bishops,  stimulated  by  the  pope,  claimed  jurisdic- 
tion oyer  civil  affaii's,  upon  the  pretense  that  there  was  hard- 
ly any  case  but  what  religion  was  concerned  with(^'')  —  the 
logical  result  of  the  papal  demand  that  the  pope  shall  be 
regarded  as  infallible  upon  all  questions  of  morals  as  well 
as  of  faith.  The  king  obtained  innumerable  subsidies  upon 
promises  which  he  violated  as  soon  as  he  received  the  mon- 
ey; in  all  of  whicli  his  perfidious  conduct  was  approved  by 
the  pope,  who  was  always  ready  to  grant  him  a  dispensa- 
tion for  the  violation  of  his  most  solemn  engagements,  when 
their  mutual  interests  were  thereby  advanced. ('')  The  popes 
considered  England  as  a  conquered  country,  its  kings  their 
vassals,  and  its  people  as  having  no  rights  of  any  value 
Avhatsoever  when  they  came  in  conflict  with  the  demands  of 
the  papacy. ('')  They  entertained  appeals  in  almost  every 
matter  of  controversy,  and  the  people  w^ere  compelled  to 
spend  immense  sums  of  money  in  traveling  to  Rome  to  so- 
licit their  favor.  ('')  They  converted  Peter-pence  into  a  trib- 
ute to  the  chair  of  Peter,  and  practiced  the  most  rigorous 
measures  for  its  collection. ('")  They  organized  a  compact 
body  of  ecclesiastics,  trained  to  obedience  and  submission^ 

(")  Rapin,  vol.  iii.,  p.  305.  ('2)  Hume,  vol.  ii.,  p.  IG. 

(")  Rapin,  vol.  iii.,  p.  324.  ('*)  Ibid.,  p.  367. 

('^)  Ibid.,  p.  371.  C^")  Ibid.,  pp.  374,  457. 

Q')  I  hid.,  p.  403.  {'^)  Ibid.,  p.  454. 

Q')  Ibid.  O  Ibid.,  p.  457. 
30 


4GG  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POTER. 

who,  in  disregard  of  tlie  laws  of  the  Ivhigdom,  took  tlie  side 
of  the  popes  against  tlie  people,  as  if  they  were  the  abso- 
lute and  only  sovereigns  of  the  country. ('•^')  They  demand- 
ed that  the  civil  courts  should  have  no  jurisdiction  to  try 
and  condemn  ecclesiastics,  even  for  tlie  most  enormous 
crimes  !(^'^)  The  process  of  excommunication  was  entirely 
perverted  from  its  original  meaning,  and  made  to  serve  the 
temporal  uses  of  the  pope,  upon  trivial  no  less  than  upon 
grave  occasions,  being  employed  to  punish  trifling  acts  of 
disobedience,  to  raise  money,  and  for  almost  every  imagina- 
ble purpose  but  the  advancement  of  the  Gospel.  It  would 
be  impossible  to  enumerate,  indeed,  within  a  compass  less 
than  a  volume,  the  outrages  and  enormities  practiced  in  En- 
gland during  this  gloomy  period  by  kings  and  popes,  Avho 
considered  the  assertion  of  any  single  popular  right  as  a 
crime  which  God  had  appointed  them  to  punish  !  The  pow- 
er, oppressions,  and  vices  of  the  papacy  had  nearly  reached 
tlieir  culminating  point,  and  the  pure  religion  of  Christ  and 
his  apostles,  which  Avas  designed  to  purify  and  refine  the 
heart  and  soul  of  man,  was  entirely  subordinated  to  temporal 
and  selfish  ends,  and  made  to  play  the  ignoble  part  of  minis- 
tering to  the  worldly  ambition  of  the  popes  and  their  pros- 
tituted army  of  ecclesiastics. 

The  barons  would  have  been  unworthy  the  name  of  En- 
glishmen if  they  had  not  resisted  these  encroachments  u])on 
the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  people,  with  whose  interests 
and  happiness  their  own  had  now  become  inseparably  iden- 
tified. The  reciprocal  hatred  which  had  once  existed  be- 
tween the  Anglo-Saxons  and  the  Normans  had,  like  that  be- 
tween the  native  Britons  and  the  Saxons,  given  way  before 

C)  Rapin,  vol.  iii.,  p.  457.  O  Ibid.,  p.  458.* 

*  More  than  a  hundred  murders  were  committed  bij  ecclesiastics  during  the  reigu 
of  Henry  II.,  in  which  the  parties  were  not  even  punished  by  degradation.  The  ener- 
gy had  absolute  power  over  their  own  body,  and  no  appeal  was  allowed  from  their 
decisions,  A  layman  forfeited  his  life  by  the  crime  of  murder,  but  an  ecclesiastic 
went  unpunished.  This  v.'as  called  one  of  the  immunities  of  the  clergy  !  A  clergy- 
man committed  a  murder  in  11()3,  and,  being  tried  by  an  ecclesiastical  court,  was  sen- 
tenced merely  to  lose  his  beneiice  and  be  confined  in  a  monastery  I  The  king  com- 
j)lained  that  he  ought  to  be  tried  as  laymen  in  the  civil  courts,  but  the  clergy  object- 
ed. The  king  remained  firm,  and  it  was  finally  agreed,  among  other  things,  that  this 
should  thereafter  be  done.  But  when  the  pope  was  informed  of  this,  he  refused  liis 
sanction,  and  denounced  it  as  "  prejudicial  to  the  Church,  and  destructive  of  her  priv- 
ileges !"— liAPXN,  vol.  iii.,  pp.  21-20, 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  COMMONS.  467 

the  sense  of  common  injuries  and  tlie  threatened  loss  of  their 
common  liberties.  To  the  stubborn  tenacity  with  which  the 
Anglo-Saxons  adhered  to  their  Teutonic  principles  the  coun- 
try was  indebted  for  this.  They  had  gradually  w^orn  away 
the  Norman  prejudices,  and  had  I'etained  their  own  lan- 
guage, and  enough  of  their  ancient  laws  and  customs  to  fur- 
nish an  ultimate  barrier  against  the  encroachment*  of  kings 
and  popes  —  their  common  and  implacable  enemies.  The 
barons  realizing  this,  firmly  maintained  their  ground  on  the 
side  of  the  people,  and  resolved  upon  grappling  royalty  it- 
self by  the  throat,  if  its  hold  upon  the  country  could  not 
otherwise  be  broken.  The  struggle  was  one  which  called 
for  an  exjiibition  of  the  highest  and  noblest  qualities  of  En- 
glish character.  The  ancient  liberties  were  to  be  snatched 
from  the  grasp  of  royal  and  papal  imperialism,  and  given 
back  again  to  the  people  from  whom  they  had  been  wrench- 
ed by  usurpation,  to  be  sacredly  preserved,  as  belonging  of 
right  to  every  Englishman,  and  as  the  foundation  of  the 
world's  future  progress. 

The  firmness  and  resolution  of  the  barons  constrained  the 
king  to  grant  important  concessions.  Twenty-four  commis- 
sioners were  appointed — one  half  by  the  king,  the  other  by 
the  barons — to  provide  redress  for  the  public  grievances. (") 
These  provided  for  the  confirmation  of  the  Great  Charter, 
and  the  introduction,  for  the  first  time,  of  the  representatives 
of  the  Commons — that  is,  of  the  people — into  Parliament  ;(^*)  a 
measure,  imperfect  as  it  then  was,  which  was  based  upon  the 
natural  and  inalienable  right  of  the  people  to  give  or  with- 
hold their  assent  to  all  laws  by  which  it  is  proposed  to  gov- 
ern them.  The  Parliament,  thus  brought  under  popular  in- 
fluence, approved  what  had  been  done  by  the  commission- 
ers, and  provided  for  the  execution  of  the  articles  they  had 
drawn  up.  Beneficial  results  immediately  followed.  They 
were  first  seen  in  the  expulsion  from  the  country  of  tlie 
army  of  foreigners,  who,  by  the  joint  policy  of  the  kings  and 
the  popes,  had  been  imported  to  fill  the  ofiices,  consume  the 
wealth  of  the  people,  and  keep  them  in  bondage  to  the  pa- 
pal power.  (")  This  accomplished,  the  barons  formed  anoth- 
er') Rapin,  vol.  iii. ,  p.  431 .  C*)  Ibid. ,  ^  433.  Q")  Ibid. ,  p!  435. 


468  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

itv  alliance,  and  swore  to  maintain  their  liberties  with  their 
lives  and  fortunes.(^^)  The  city  of  London  joined  the  alli- 
ance. The  king,  however,  in  the  mean  time,  fearing  the  loss 
of  his  royal  prerogatives,  and  the  consequent  elevation  of 
the  people,  appealed  to  the  pope  to  absolve  him  from  the 
oath  he  had  taken  to  abide  by  his  compact  with  the  barons ! 
This  absohition  w^as  readily  granted  by  Pope  Alexander  IV. ; 
but,  as  he  died  before  any  effective  measures  had  been  con- 
summated, it  was  confirmed  by  Pope  Urban  IV.,(")  who  was 
as  little  scrupulous  upon  this  subject  as  any  of  his  predeces- 
sors. Thus  supported  by  the  Church,  the  king  announced 
to  Parliament  that  he  would  not  observe  his  oath,  and  took 
immediate  steps  to  recover  the  prerogatives  he  had  lost  by 
surrender  to  the  barons.  The  barons  w^ere  unyielding,  and 
they  and  the  king  both  prepared  for  civil  war.  To  avoid 
this,  however,  if  possible,  the  barons  petitioned  the  king  to 
adopt  conciliatory  measures,  which  he  finally  consented  to 
do,  to  an  extent  satisfactory  to  them.  But  the  king  soon 
broke  his  promise  again — as  he  could  easily  do  at  any  time, 
by  the  help  of  the  pope — and  the  parties  again  made  prep- 
arations for  war.  The  king  at  last  began  active  hostilities 
by  surprising  Dover  Castle,  which  was  in  the  hands  of  the 
barons. f^)  Before  any  decisive  result  was  reached,  howev- 
er, it  was  agreed  to  refer  the  matter  to  the  King  of  France 
as  arbiter — a  measure  which  reflects  more  credit  upon  the 
peaceful  disposition  of  the  barons  than  it  does  upon  their 
sagacity.  As  might  have  been  expected,  the  French  king 
fully  sustained  his  royal  brother  of  England,  having  precise- 
ly the  same  motive  for  keeping  the  people  in  subjection,  and 
being  equally  under  the  influence  of  the  pope.  He  decided 
that  the  provisions  of  the  twenty-four  commissioners  were 
null  and  void,  that  the  king  should  be  restored  to  his  former 
power,  that  he  should  appoint  all  the  great  officers  of  the 
crown,  and  that  foreigners  should  be  as  capable  of  holding 
ofiices  in  England  as  the  English  themselves  !f')  Consent 
to  this  on  the  part  of  the  barons  would  have  buried  English 
liberty  in  its  grave  forever.     Therefore,  civil  war  became  in- 

C)  Rapin,  vol.  iii.,  p.  435.  C)  Ibid.,  p.  443. 

O  Ibid. ,  p.  453.  C)  If^id. ,  p.  454. 


CONTEST  FOR  POPULAE  RIGHTS.  469 

evitable.  At  the  beginning  of  it,  fortune  seemed  to  favor 
the  cause  of  the  king,  but  he  was  finally  taken  prisoner ; 
when  the  barons  drew  up  a  new  plan  of  government  for  the 
extension  and  security  of  their  liberties.  By  this  plan  con- 
servators were  appointed  in  each  county  to  preserve  the 
privileges  of  the  people,  and  these  were  required  to  nomi- 
nate knights  to  sit  in  Parliament  as  the  representatives  of 
tlieir  shires,  thus  laying  the  foundation  for  popular  legisla- 
tive representation.  The  Parliament  elected  pursuant  to 
this  plan  adopted  important  measures  of  reform  for  the  pro- 
motion of  the  public  welfare,  and  greatly  reduced  the  pre- 
rogatives of  the  king.  While  the  Government  was  thus 
conducted,  it  made  a  nearer  approach  to  the  popular  form 
than  any  other  that  had  existed  in  England  after  the  popes 
had  obtained  a  foothold  there,  and  embodied  many  of  the 
Teutonic  principles  brought  there  by  the  Saxons.  The  king, 
however,  having  subsequently  obtained  his  liberty,  the  bar- 
ons suffered  a  severe  defeat,  which  changed  the  whole  as- 
pect of  affairs.  After  this,  the  barons  were  persecuted  "  a 
thousand  Avays,"  and  made  to  "endure  many  hardships," 
says  the  historian.  (^°)  Their  estates  were  confiscated.  The 
city  of  London  was  required  to  deliver  up  her  magistrates, 
and  pay  large  sums  of  money.  The  king  conferred  the  es- 
tates of  the  barons  upon  his  favorites,  and  left  no  means  un- 
tried to  punish  them  for  their  resistance  to  his  authority. 
Pope  Clement  IV.,  to  convince  the  people  that  the  barons 
had  forfeited  their  claim  to  his  protection  and  secured  to 
themselves  the  certainty  of  eternal  perdition,  because  they 
had  struggled  to  regain  the  ancient  liberties  of  the  country, 
sent  over  a  legate  with  a  bull  of  excommunication  against 
them  and  all  their  adherents,  dead  or  alive  !(^^)  And  thus, 
Avith  only  their  "lives  and  limbs"  saved,  these  defenders  of 
human  freedom  against  the  encroachments  of  kingly  and 
pontifical  absolutism  were  compelled  to  lay  down  their 
arms,  and  go  back  among  the  people,  to  keep  alive  in  their 
minds  the  principles  for  which  they  had  risked  so  much. 
And  they  were  kept  alive — cherished  in  the  hearts  of  the 
English  people,  until  the  time  came  for  their  final  triumph. 

C)  Rapin,  vol.  iii.,  p.  473.  ^  O  Ibid.,  p.  471. 


470  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWEK. 

We  can  scarcely  realize  now,  in  the  midst  of  our  own  pros- 
perity, how  much  Ave  owe  to  these  firm  and  courageous  old 
Iieroes,  Avho,  for  nearly  half  a  century,  held  out  against  both 
kings  and  popes.  But  for  them,  the  ancient  liberties  of  En- 
gland would  have  been  lost,  and  the  world  would  liave  been 
kept  in  the  midnight  of  the  Middle  Ages.  But  for  them, 
the  reign  of  King  John  would  have  been  redeemed  by  uo 
such  event  as  the  establishment  of  the  Great  Charter  to 
save  it  from  the  disgrace  of  treachery  and  imbecility.  And 
but  for  them,  the  present  civil  and  religious  freedom  of  En- 
gland and  the  United  States  might  have  had  no  such  foun- 
dation as  has  enabled  it,  thus  far,  to  defy  assault,  and  stand 
firm  against  encroachment.  Truth  and  candor  require  that 
fall  justice  should  be  done  to  these  old  Roman  Catholic  bar- 
ons, who  obeyed  God  and  their  own  consciences,  rather  than 
coi-rupt  popes  and  ecclesiastics.  They  loved  their  religion,  but 
they  loved  freedom  also ;  and  for  loving  freedom  they  were 
cursed,  anathematized,  and  despoiled  by  the  Church  of  Rome ! 
They  did  not  believe  the  pope  to  be  infallible,  and  for  this  they 
were  consigned  to  eternal  torment  in  the  world  to  come ! 

But  the  barons  made  so  bold  a  stand  ngainst  imperialism, 
that,  from  the  time  of  this  memorable  contest  to  the  birth 
of  Protestantism  in  England,  no  king  dared  again  arouse 
the  popular  indignation  by  an  armed  assault  upon  the  de- 
fenders of  the  Great  Charter.  The  fear  of  the  people  be- 
gan to  manifest  itself  in  their  conduct  and  policy.  They 
conceded  only  what  they  could  not  withhold,  and,  together 
with  the  popes,  employed  art  and  intrigue  to  accomplish, 
by  indirection,  what  they  dared  not  attempt  again  to  ob- 
tain by  force.  ICdward  I.  confirmed  the  Charter  at  the  be- 
ginning of  his  reign,  in  order  to  conciliate  popular  favor;  and 
although  he  had  pretended  to  do  it  "of  his  own  accord,"  he 
soon  asked  the  pope  to  absolve  him  from  his  promise,  religion 
and  the  Church  being  used  solely  to  advance  the  temporal 
ends  of  kings  and  popes.  The  pope  absolved  him,  of  course, 
not  merely  because  of  his  liostility  to  the  Charter  on  account 
of  its  enfranchisement  of  the  people,  but  because,  as  it  is 
said,  the  king  made  him  "a  present  of  gold  plate !"(")     Ed- 

C^)  Rapin,  vol.  iv.,  pp.  99-113. 


THE  PERFIDY  OF  KINGS.  471 

Avarcl  II.  pledged  liiniself  to  P<arliainent  that  its  provisions 
should  be  faithfully  kept,  and  when  he  sought  to  escape^the 
fulfillment  of  his  promise,  tlie  barons  seized  him,  and  held  him 
to  his  word.  Yet  lie  recognized  himself  as  the  vassal  of  the 
pope,  and  suffered  him  to  interfere  in  the  temporal  affairs  of 
his  kingdom.  This  the  pope  did  by  sending  a  legate  to  En- 
gland with  a  papal  commission  to  make  peace  between  that 
country  and  Scotland,  to  excommunicate  both  kings,  and 
place  both  countries  under  interdict  if  they  refused  obedi- 
ence !(^^) —  thus  assuming  that  all  the  prerogatives  of  botli 
crowns  belonged  to  him  as  the  vicar  of  Christ/  Edward 
III.,  in  order  to  obtain  a  subsidy  from  Parliament,  again  con- 
firmed the  Charter,(''')  and  indicated  a  wish  to  curtail  the 
authority  of  the  pope,  by  subsequently  repeating  this  act 
of  confirmation,  and  by  consenting  to  the  statute  of  Provi- 
sors  to  prohibit  the  popes  from  disposing  of  benefices  in  En- 
gland. (^")  This  statute,  however,  was  not  effective  against 
the  machinations  of  the  popes,  and,  although  several  times  re- 
peated under  subsequent  kings,  its  terms  had  to  be  enlarged 
by  the  statute  of  Pra3munire  before  any  good  was  accom- 
plished by  it.(^'')  Every  thing  done  by  these  kings  was  by 
way  of  concession  to  the  people,  on  account  of  fear  —  show- 
ing that  they  were  apprehensive  that  their  royal  rights  were 
held  by  a  precarious  tenure,  and  that  the  people  only  await- 
ed a  favorable  opportunity  to  assert  their  ancient  liberties. 
During  all  the  subsequent  reigns  between  that  time  and  the 
accession  of  Henry  VIII.,  these  liberties  were  suspended,  but 
not  forgotten  :  if  tliere  had  been  no  other  method  of  preser- 
vation, they  would  have  been  traditionally  preserved  in  the 
English  mind.  The  one  hundred  and  thirty  years  embraced 
in  that  period  were  distinguished  by  many  events  of  the 
most  important  character  to  England  and  the  world.  The 
fortunes  of  the  people  seemed  sometimes  to  be  almost  over- 
whelmed by  the  combined  oppression  of  kings  and  popes; 
but  their  cause  w\as  never  at  any  time  entirely  lost.     Provi- 

O  Kapin,  vol.  iv. ,  p.  152.  C)  Ibid. ,  p.  242.  C'}  Ibid.,  p.  255. 

.  (^®)  The  statute  of  Provisors  provided  that  no  ecclesiastical  living  should 
be  accepted  from  the  pope,  and  that  nothing  should  be  sent  to  him  out  of  the 
kingdom.  By  that  of  Praemunire  all  bulls,  excommunications,  etc.,  against 
the  king,  crown,  or  realm,  proceeding  from  Rome,  were  prohibited. 


472  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

dence  will  shape  our  ends,  "rough-hew  them  how  we  will;" 
and  when  the  popes,  as  the  liead  of  the  Church,  gi-asped  a 
temporal  sword,  and  stained  it  with  the  blood  of  pious  Chris- 
tians, for  no  other  offense  than  the  worship  of  God  accord- 
ing to  their  own  consciences,  they  called  down  the  wrath  of 
Heaven  upon  their  own  heads,  and  aided  in  building  up  a 
]iarty  of  reform  in  the  Church.  As  early  as  the  reign  of 
Itichardll.  incipient  steps  were  taken  in  this  work  of  reform 
— showing  that  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  never  was  with- 
out pious  and  devout  Christians  among  its  members.  The 
measures  then  inaugurated  ultimately  gave  birth  to  Protest- 
antism—slowly, it  is  true,  but  surely.  Although,  in  1381,  an 
act  Avas  passed,  in  obedience  to  Rome,  authorizing  the  im- 
prisonment of  heretics  by  the  bishops, (")  yet  the  House  of 
Commons  forced  a  repeal  of  it  during  the  next  year.(^^)  The 
passage  of  such  an  act,  however,  shows  that  Rome  was  ready 
to  place  her  heel  of  iron  upon  the  necks  of  any  who  dared 
consult  their  own  consciences  upon  questions  of  religious 
faith.  She  would  repeat  these  measures  to-day  if  she  again 
possessed  the  power,  and,  therefore,  they  teach  us  a  valuable 
and  most  instructive  lesson. 

This  inauguration  of  religious  persecution  was  designed 
for  the  suppression  of  the  Lollards,  or  followers  of  John 
Wycliife,  who  published  his  reform  doctrines  in  the  year 
1377,  during  the  reign  of  Edward  HI.  These  new  doctrines 
had  so  spread  among  the  people  in  a  few  years,  that,  while 
Richard  H.  was  carrying  on  his  war  in  Ireland,  the  Arch- 
bishop of  York  and  the  Bishop  of  London  were  compelled 
to  entreat  liim  to  return,  and  look  after  the  cause  of  religion. 
The  immediate  cause  of  their  alarm  was,  that  at  a  late  Par- 
liament the  Lollards  had  suggested  the  necessity  for  reform 
in  the  Church  !(^'')  The  king  returned,  seized  upon  one  of 
the  Lollards,  compelled  him  to  abjure  the  new  doctrines,  and 
threatened  him  with  death  if  he  again  professed  them  !(") 
Now  a  new  and  powerful  element  began  its  work — one  which 
the  people  readily  saw  would  enable  them  to  achieve  their 
ultimate  freedom.     There  was  yet  no  law  to  punish  heresy ; 

(")  Rapin,  vol.  iv.,  p.  394.  C^  Ibid.,  p.  397. 

O  lUd.,  p.  424.  0°)  Ibid.,  pp.  424,  425. 


EEFORMATION  BEGUN  BY  WYCLIFFE.  473 

and,  therefore,  Wycliffe  was  mimolestecl,  and  his  followers 
among  the  people  increased  with  wonderful  rapidity.  Even 
his  death  did  not  dishearten  them ;  and  as  early  as  the  year 
1389  they  began  to  separate  from  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church,  and  to  appoint  their  own  priests('')  — thus  begin- 
ning the  Reformation.  So  rapidly  did  they  increase,  that 
Rome  had  to  bring  forth  the  most  fearful  engines  of  her 
power  to  suppress  their  free  thought,  and  chain  down  their 
limbs.  The  reign  of  Henry  lY.  was  soon  signalized  by  the 
enactment  of  a  law  "for  the  burning  of  heretics  "('') — a  most 
Christian(!)  and  truly  Roman  mode  of  disposing  of  the  Lol- 
lards. Under  this  act,  William  Sawtre,  a  Lollard,  was  im- 
mediately convicted  by  an  ecclesiastical  court,  and  burned 
to  death  !(")— thus  becoming  the  first  English  martyr,  after 
the  monks  of  Bangor,  to  the  cause  of  religious  liberty.  Then 
Rome  rejoiced,  and  the  cruel  and  bloody  work  of  persecution 
began.  The  fires  were  kindled  which  were  to  consume  hun- 
dreds more  of  the  best  of  England's  sons— of  men  whose  only 
crime  was  that  they  dared  assert  that  God  had  given  to  ev- 
ery man  the  riglit  to  worship  him  according  to  the  dictates 
of  his  own  conscience !  Thomas  Badby,  another  Lollard,  was 
burned  in  1410.  When  oftered  his  life  if  he  would  recant,  he 
refused,  and  suffered  death  with  heroic  courage.  (")  During 
the  reign  of  Henry  V.  the  Romish  clergy  held  a  convocation 
to  decide  upon  measures  necessary  to  check  the  progress  of 
the  doctrines  of  Wyclifie ;  which  resulted  in  the  king's  be- 
ing advised  by  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  "that  fire  and 
fagot  were  the  only  means  of  extirpating  heresy  !"(")  This 
was  the  doctrine  of  Rome,  announced  by  its  highest  ecclesi- 
astic in  England  !  But  the  king  was  slow  to  adopt  it,  as  the 
new  doctrines  were  spreading  so  rapidly  as  to  excite  his  fears 
of  the  people.  He,  however,  advanced  toward  it  as  near  as 
he  thought  he  could  safely  do,  by  issuing  a  proclamation  pro- 
hibiting the  Lollards  from  holding  meetings,  and  the  people 
from  being  present  at  their  preaching  !  But  tlie  Lollards 
held  their  meetings,  notwithstanding  the  proclamation,  and 
at  one  of  them,  held  at  St.  Giles's  Fields,  near  London,  it  was 

(*^)  Rapin,  vol.  iv.,  p.  472. 

(")  Ibid.,  \ol  v.,  p.  33  ;  Fronde's  "  Hist,  of  England,"  vol.  i.,  p.  95. 

n  Rapin,  vol.  v.,  p.  33.         C)  ^^i<^;  ^  ^4.         C)  ^^^^^  PP-  92,  93. 


474  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

rcpresGiitecl  tliat  twenty  tliousaiid  were  present,  supposed  to 
be  under  Sir  John  Oldcastle,  wlio  had  been  previously  con- 
victed of  heresy,  and  would  have  been  burned  if  he  had  not 
escaped.  Being  unable  to  suppress  these  peaceful  assem- 
blages of  the  people,  the  clergy  ^idopted  another  method  for 
their  extermination,  by  persuading  the  king  to  believe  that 
the  Lollards  had  a  design  upon  his  life,  and  were  conspirino- 
against  the  Government  —  a  method  which  it  required  the 
corrupt  followers  of  the  papacy  to  invent.  The  king  yield- 
ed to  their  importunities,  summoned  a  body  of  armed  men, 
closed  the  gates  of  London,  for  fear  the  people  there  would 
go  out  to  help  the  Lollards,  surprised  about  eiglity  ])caceful 
and  praying  Christians  at  midnight,  cruelly  murdered  twen- 
ty of  them,  and  made  prisoners  of  the  other  sixtv,  some  of 
whom  were  forthwith  executed,  and  the  remainder  set  at 
liberty.  (") 

During  the  reign  of  Edward  IV.  the  clergy  regained  much 
of  their  lost  power,  and  again  began  to  press  more  heavily 
and  severely  upon  the  people.  In  1462  an  act  was  passed, 
under  dictation  from  Rome,  providing  that  they  should  only 
be  tried  in  the  ecclesiastical  courts,  and  should  not  be  held 
responsible  for  crimes  before  the  civil  tribunals.  The  king 
also  released  them  from  the  operation  of  the  statutes  of  Pro- 
visors  and  Praemunire.  (*')  But  all  these  measures,  while  they 
added  to  the  power  of  the  Romish  clergy  in  England,  also 
increased  their  corruptions.  These  were  so  openly  and  un- 
blushingly  practiced  as  to  put  in  striking  contrast  their  con- 
duct with  that  of  the  reforming  Christians;  and  by  this 
means  the  numbers  of  the  latter  continually  increased,  es- 
pecially among  those  who  had  so  long  struggled  to  maintain 
the  Great  Charter  and  the  ancient  liberties.  And  thus  these 
popular  elements  were  consolidated  into  a  power  which  per- 
secution could  not  destroy,  but  which  was  destined  to  be 
preserved  until  it  became  strong  enough  to  control  the  pol- 
icy of  the  English  nation,  and  influence  the  whole  civilized 
world. 

The  finger  of  Providence  was  wonderfully  displayed  in 
the  events  which  immediately  preceded  and  followed  this 

(")  Rapin,  vol.  v.,  pp.  100-103.  {*')  Ibid.,  vol.  vi.,  p.  17. 


GllEGORY  XI.  AND  THE  VAUDOIS.  475 

beginning  of  the  Reformation,  under  the  inspiration  of  the 
new  doctrines  announced  byWycliffe;  in. so  exhibiting  to 
the  world  the  ambition  and  corruption  of  the  papacy  as  to 
demonstrate  tlie  necessity  for  the  restoration  of  the  ancient 
liberties  in  England,  in  order  that  tlie  English  people,  by  the 
aid  of  their  cultivated  reason,  might  discover  the  true  teach- 
ings of  the  apostolic  Christians,  and  restore  Christianity  to 
the  purity  it  enjoyed  before  Constantine  tempted  the  bish- 
ops of  Rome  to  mingle  in  the  temporal  concerns  of  princes. 
It  was  but  a  little  while  before  when  Pope  Urban  Y.  was 
shut  up  for  "  whole  days"  in  the  palace  of  the  Vatican  with 
the  infamous  Joanna  of  Naples,  and  rewarded  this  "crown- 
ed courtesan"  for  her  favors  by  presenting  her  with  "the 
golden  rose"  at  the  public  ceremony  of  its  blessing. (")  It 
was  during  the  pontiticate  of  Gregory  XI.  that  Wycliife  at- 
tacked the  ultramontane  doctrines.  One  of  the  first  acts  of 
this  pope  was  to  issue  a  bull  against  Barnabo  —  one  of  the 
liated  Visconti,  who  had  caused  tlie  arrest  of  the  Bishop  of 
Milan — denouncing  him  because  he  had  refused  his  subjects 
permission  to  go  to  Rome  "to  purchase  indulgences,  bene- 
fices, and  absolutions."(")  And  when  Barnabo  made  overt- 
ures of  peace  to  him,  lie  refused  them,  saying,  "No,  no;  it 
is  useless  for  me  to  see  them  ;  I  will  spare  tliem  from  perju- 
ry, and  will  save  their  souls  in  spite  of  themselves,  by  caus- 
ing them  to  be  interred  alive  if  they  fall  into  my  hands." 
He  directed  the  Vaudois  to  be  exterminated  by  armed  troops 
and  by  his  infernal  Inquisitors.  He  wrote  to  the  Bishop  of 
London  to  put  Wyclitfe  "to  the  torture,"  and  rejoiced  as 
the  devouring  flames  consumed  the  bodies  of  thousands  of 
Cliristians  whom  he  called  heretics. ("") 

The  fourteenth  century  closed  with  three  popes,  each  ex- 
communicating the  others;  and  the  fifteenth  began  with  two 
—  one  of  whom  caused  the  other  to  be  poisoned  !("^)  For 
more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century  there  were  popes  and  anti- 
popes — some  at  Rome,  otliers  at  Avignon  in  France,  at  the 
same  time — who  denounced  each  other,  to  the  scandal  of  all 
Christendom,  until  pure-minded  Christians  all  over  Europe 

O  Cormenin,  vol.  ii.,  p.  71.  (*')  Ibid.,  p.  73. 

C)Ibid.,i>.7o.  .    ,  CO  ^^^'^^-^  p.  93. 


476  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

blushed  for  shame.  Gregory  XII.  was  pope  at  Rome,  while 
Benedict  XIII.  was  also  pope  at  Avignon.  The  "  sacred  col- 
lege "  of  cardinals,  assembled  at  Kome,  said  of  Gregory  that 
lie  was  an  "accursed  pope,"  because  he  desired  to  murder 
several  of  them.  They  called  him  "  the  coward,  the  drunk- 
ard, and  the  knave;  tlie  man  of  blood,  the  illustrious  robber, 
the  schismatic,  the  heretic,  the  precursor  of  Antichrist!"  Avho 
had  "mounted  the  chair  of  the  apostle  like  a  thief,  to  set  fire 
to  the  four  corners  of  the  house  of  God,  and  to  pull  down  its 
columns  !"  And  of  Benedict  they  said  that  he  was  "  a  wor- 
thy copartner"  of  Gregory  "in  his  work  of  violence  and  in- 
iquity."('')  They  also  charged  Gregory  with  an  "incestu- 
ous amour  with  his  own  sister  I"  and  called  his  chamberlains 
the  purveyors  of  his  "  hideous  lubricity  !"  And  the  Coun- 
cil of  Pisa  confirmed  the  iniquity  of  both  these  infallible  (!) 
popes,  deposed  both  of  them  from  their  sacerdotal  functions, 
and  elected  another,  who  took  the  name  of  Alexander  V. 

In  the  sentence  of  the  council  it  is  declared  "  that  these 
two  infimous  men  are  guilty  of  enormous  iniquities  and  ex- 
cesses !"('')  Alexander  V.  died  of  poison,  when  John  XXIII. 
"broke  the  pontifical  gate  with  a  golden  axe,"(")  and  was 
crowned  as  pope  at  Rome.  The  Ecumenical  Council  of  Con- 
stance soon  met,  and  deposed  John,  declaring  that  he  was 
"the  oppressor  of  the  poor,  the  persecutor  of  the  just,  the 
support  of  knaves,  the  idol  of  simoniacs,  the  slave  of  the 
flesh,  a  sink  of  vices,  a  man  destitute  of  every  virtue,  a  mirror 
of  infamy,  a  devil  incarnate."  Fifty-four  articles  enumera- 
ting his  crimes  were  publicly  read,  and  "twenty  other  se- 
cret ones"  were  not  read, "  so  frightful  were  the  crimes  which 
they  announced."(")  This  council,  after  acquiring  for  itself 
an  undesirable  notoriety  by  condemning  John  Huss  for  liere- 
sy,  elected  a  new  pope,  Martin  V.  Pope  Gregory  XII.  final- 
ly submitted  to  the  decree  of  deposition,  and  so  did  John 
XXIIL,  who  retired  to  a  fortress.  But  there  still  remained 
two  successors  of  Peter— Martin  V.  and  Benedict  XIII.  The 
latter  lived  as  pope  in  Valencia  for  about  ten  years,  and  aft- 
er his  death  his  cardinals  elected  Clement  VIII.  as  his  suc- 


(")  Cormenin,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  95,  9G.  O  Ibid.,  p.  97. 

(")  lUd.,  p.  100.  .  (")  Ibid.,  p.  108. 


POPES  CONDEMNED  AND  DEPOSED.       477 

cessor;  but  he  was  finally  induced  to  abdicate  in  favor  of 
Martin  V.,  and  thus  to  put  an  end  to  the  corrupt  and  degrad- 
ing quarrels  about  the  papal  sovereignty  at  Rome  which  had 
made  all  the  parties  concerned,  for  half  a  century,  contempt- 
ible in  the  eyes  of  the  world. 

No  wonder  that  God  so  directed  his  providences  that  tlie 
lovers  of  true  Christianity^  within  the  pale  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  should  see  these  and  other  kindred  enor- 
mities of  the  papacy.     This  old  Church,  hallowed  by  an  ex- 
istence of  nearly  fifteen  hundred  years,  yet  retained  within 
her  fold  many  thousands  of  devoted  and  pious  Christians, 
who  had  escaped  the  contamination  of  the  corruption  which 
had  S3  long  prevailed  among  the  leading  hierarchy.      How 
their  hearts  must  have  bled  when  they  saAV  her  led  away  by 
these  debasing  influences  of  the  papal  system,  so  far  from 
the   apostolic  counsels   she  had  once  followed!     How  sad 
they  must  have  been  when,  looking  back  through  the  last 
thousand  years,  they  beheld  her  gradually  descending  from 
her  high  eminence  down   into  corruptions  at  which  pagan 
Rome  would  have  blushed,  and  soiling  her  sacred  and  once 
unspotted  robes  Avith  the  slime  and  filth  of  worldly  poli- 
tics !     And  how  natural  it  was  for  them,  acting  in  consist- 
ency with  their  understanding  of  religious  duty,  to  begin 
the  work  of  reformation,  and  to   desire  the  eradication   of 
these   abuses,  and  the   extraction    of  the   j^oison   that   was 
coursing  through  her  veins,  slowly,  but  steadily,  consuming 
lier  strength.     Many  of  them  must  have  felt  as  one  of  that 
Church,  referring  to  times  subsequent  to  those  of  which  we 
are  now  writing,  expressed  himself  when  he  said  :  "  The  fif- 
teenth century,  however,  surpassed  all  the  preceding  ages  in 
corruption;  tlie  churches  became  the  resorts  of  robbers,  sod- 
omites, and  assassins;   popes,  cardinals,  bishops,  and  mere 
clerks  exercised  brigandage  forcibly  in  the  provinces,  and 
employed,  as  was  most  convenient,  poison,  the  sword,  and 
fire,  to  free  themselves  from  their  enemies,  and  despoil  their 
victims.     The  Inquisition  lent  its  horrible  ministry  to  popes 
and  kings.     In  France,  Spain,  Italy,  Germany,  and  England, 
it  embraced  in  its  thousand  arms  the  victims  of  the  cupidi- 
ty of  tyrants,  and  put  them  to  the  most  frightful  tortures. 
The  country  was  covered  with  legious  of  priests  and  monks, 


478  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

who  clevonred  tlie  substance  of  the  people,  and  carried  off  to 
their  impure  retreats  young  girls  and  liandsome  youths, whom 
they  again  cast  out,  disgraced  and  dishonored.  The  cities  be- 
came the  theatres  of  orgies  and  Saturnalia,  and  the  palaces 
of  bishops  were  filled  with  equipages  for  the  chase,  packs  of 
dogs,  troops  of  courtesans,  minions,  jugglers,  and  buffoons. "(^'^) 
The  reader  can  not  fail  to  have  observed  the  causes  whicli 
led  to  the  melancholy  condition  of  affairs,  both  in  State  and 
Church,  shown  by  the  foregoing  detail.  There  was  no  want 
of  patriotism  on  the  part  of  the  English  people,  or  of  true 
piety  on  the  part  of  the  laity  of  the  Church.  These  were 
struggling  in  every  way  they  could  to  establish  reform  and 
make  it  effectual  in  both  State  and  Church.  The  wrongs 
inflicted  upon  them  were  not  necessary  to  the  Church,  or 
sanctioned  by  any  of  her  earliest  teaohings.  They  were  in- 
herent in  the  papal  system,  arose  out  of  the  temporal  power, 
and  grew  in  enormity  as  that  power  increased.  The  doc- 
trine of  passive  obedience  and  submission  to  authorit}^,  ap- 
plied to  the  affairs  of  the  State,  prohibited  the  citizen  from 
making  any  complaint  against  the  conduct  of  the  king  and 
Govei'ument,  under  penalty  of  severe  punishment.  The  same 
doctrine,  applied  to  the  affairs  of  the  Church,  prohibited  the 
layman,  however  conscientious,  from  expressing  any  disap- 
probation of  the  conduct  of  pope  or  priest,  under  penalty  of 
excommunication.  In  the  one  case  the  act  was  held  to  be  a 
crime  against  the  State,  in  the  other  a  sin  against  God  !  To 
say  of  a  king  that  he  was  a  tyrant,  was  treason  against  the 
State;  to  say  of  a  pope  or  a  priest  that  he  had  committed 
murder,  or  adultery,  or  any  other  crime,  was  treason  against 
God !  This  was  the  teaching  of  the  False  Decretals ;(") 
and  to  cover  it  up  as  a  part  of  the  doctrinal  belief  of  the 
Church,  the  popes  have  assumed  that  they  act  on  earth  in 
the  place  of  God,  that  all  their  power  is  derived  directly 
from  God,  and  therefore  that  they  are  infallible  and  can  not 
err !  When  Constantine,  addressing  "  a  company  of  bish- 
ops," said  to  them,  in  the  presence  of  Eusebius,  "You  are 

O  Cormenin,  vol.  ii.,  p.  91. 

(")  It  has  already  been  shown  that  even  the  celebrated  Council  of  Trent 
decreed  that  a  minister  of  the  Church  forfeits  none  of  his  authority  by  any 
sin,  however  enormous ! 


COXSTANTINE  AND  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT.  479 

bishops  w.hose  jurisdiction  is  within  the  Church,"  lie  intend- 
ed to  limit  their  power,  and  to  deny  them  any  authority 
over  tem])oral  afFairs.  But  when  he  continued  in  these 
words:  "I  also  am  a  bishop,  ordained  by  God  to  overlook 
whatever  is  external  to  the  Church,"('*')  he  asserted  the  di- 
vine right  of  kings.  And  when  the  popes,  in  order  to  gath- 
er all  this  external  power  into  their  own  hands,  built  up  the 
wonderful  machinery  of  the  papacy,  and  obtained  the  con- 
sent of  kings  to  receive  temporal  crowns  at  their  hands, 
they  made  the  doctrine  of  Constantine  a  part  of  the  relig- 
ious faith  of  the  Roman  Church,  so  that  they,  as  the  only  in- 
fallible representatives  of  God  on  earth,  should  become  the 
dispensers  of  crowns,  the  regulators  of  the  internal  affairs  of 
nations,  the  authors  of  universal  law,  and,  consequently,  the 
irresponsible  sovereigns  of  the  world.  With  Innocent  III. 
the  crown  of  England  was  held  by  divine  right;  and  as  God 
had  intrusted  the  Pope  of  Rome  with  the  sole  authority  to 
decide  what  was  permitted  or  forbidden  by  his  law,  there- 
fore he  had  a  divine  right  higher  than  that  of  the  king,  by 
the  authority  of  which  ho  was  entitled  to  say  who  should, 
and  who  should  not,  wear  the  crown.  And  as  he  was  infalli- 
ble and  could  not  err,  whensoever  and  howsoever  he  de- 
cided the  question,  passive  obedience  and  submission  to  his 
decision  became  a  religious  duty  to  the  faithful ;  and  whoso- 
ever dared  to  question  the  correctness  of  his  decision,  or 
challenge  the  legitimacy  of  his  authority,  became  ipso  jure  a 
heretic,  and  liable  to  be  cut  off  from  tlie  Church,  and  fi-om 
all  Christian  association,  by  the  terrible  sword  of  excommu- 
nication !  This  was  the  great  and  comprehensive  power 
that  absorbed  all  other  powers.  It  held  the  kings  in  obedi- 
ence to  the  popes,  and  they  plotted  together,  in  every  form 
of  intrigue,  to  make  their  united  power  so  compact  and  un- 
assailable that  it  should  press  with  death-like  weight  upon 
the  people,  both  in  Church  and  State,  that  they  might  re- 
main unconscious  of  their  degradation;  or  where  one  ap- 
peared, bolder  than  the  rest,  to  fling  defiance  in  their  faces, 
lie  should  be  silenced  by  excommunication,  if  possible  ;  but 
if  not,  by  the  rack,  the  dungeon,  or  the  fagot. 

Q'^)  "Life  of  Constantine,"  by  Eusebiug,  London,  1815,  p.  193. 


480  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

We  shall  have  occasion  hereafter  to  see  how  this  doctrine 
of  the  divine  temporal  authority  and  infallibility  of  the 
popes  deals  with  the  obligations  of  the  most  solemn  oaths 
and  promises,  when  the  pope  regards  them  as  opposed  to 
the  welfare  of  the  Church ;  but  the  readiness  with  Avhich 
the  popes  released  the  English  kings  from  their  oatlis  to  ex- 
ecute the  principles  of  Magna  Charta  is  too  suggestive,  in 
this  connection,  to  be  passed  by  without  comment.  It  will 
readily  be  perceived  that  if  these  infallible  popes  acted  in 
conformity  with  the  law  of  the  Church,  then,  by  that  same 
law,  no  faith  whatever  can  be  kept  with  heretics ! 

Undoubtedly  the  power  to  release  from  the  obligation  of 
an  oath  is  held  to  be  an  incident  to  the  power  to  absolve 
from  the  consequences  of  sin.  In  order  to  justify  its  exer- 
cise the  oath  must  be  to  do  something  violative  of  the  law 
of  God  and  against  the  interests  of  the  Churcli,  in  which 
case  it  would  be  considered  void;  or  something  which,  law- 
ful in  itself,  would,  if  done,  lead  to  one  or  the  other  of  these 
consequences,  in  which  case  it  would  be  binding  without 
the  exercise  of  the  dispensing  power.  Upon  which  of  these 
grounds  the  popes  based  their  action  in  releasing  the  En- 
glish kings  from  their  obligations  in  reference  to  Magna 
Charta  is  of  no  consequence,  any  further  than  as  tlieir  con- 
duct served  to  illustrate,  practically,  the  application  of  a 
doctrine  regulated  by  a  law  of  the  Church.  Viewed  in  ei- 
ther light,  the  result  is  the  same.  For  example :  whether 
they  considered  Magna  Charta  to  be  violative  of  the  law  of 
God,  or  against  the  interests  of  the  Church,  and  therefore 
unlawful ;  or  tliat  if  its  principles  were  carried  out  in  En- 
gland, either  or  both  of  these  consequences  would  ensue, 
their  opposition  to  it  was  based  upon  their  divine  right  to 
judge  of  these  things ;  and  their  power  to  dispense  the  kings 
from  the  observance  of  their  oaths  was  the  necessary  and 
logical  consequence.  That,  in  point  of  fact,  they  did  consid- 
er it  to  be  violative  of  the  divine  right  of  kings,  because  it 
conferred  upon  the  people  the  right  to  participate  in  the  af 
fairs  of  government,  is,  beyond  all  question,  true.  And,  be- 
ing so  considered,  it  was  made  a  matter  of  religious  faith 
that  the  principles  of  the  Great  Charter  should  not  be  exe- 
cuted in  England.     And  why  of  religious  faith  ?     For  the 


THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  MAGNA  CIIARTA.  481 

manifest  reason  that  as  the  divine  right  necessarily  inchided 
the  right  of  kings  to  govern  the  people,  and  the  ri_ght  of  the 
popes  to  govern  the  kings,  therefore  it  was  an  essential  part 
of  the  doctrine,  and  consequently  of  the  law,  of  the  Church. 
Now,  if  the  i-eader  will  examine  the  Charter  he  will  see  how 
it  violated  this  doctrine  of  divine  right,  and  wherein  it  was 
in  opposition  to  the  doctrine  and  law  of  the  Church,  as  un- 
derstood by  the  infallible  popes  of  that  day.  In  so  far  as  it 
conferred  any  rights  upon  the  people,  its  principles  may 
be  thus  briefly  summed  up  :  it  prohibited  unlawful  amerce- 
ments, distresses,  or  punishments ;  it  gave  the  right  to  the 
owner  of  personal  property  to  dispose  of  it  by  wall ;  it  es- 
tablished the  right  of  dower;  it  gave  uniformity  to  weights 
and  measures;  it  forbade  the  alienation  of  lands  in  mort- 
main; it  provided  against  undue  delays  in  the  administra- 
tion of  justice,  for  assizes  and  circuits  for  the  trial  of  causes, 
for  the  trial  of  every  accused  freeman  by  jury;  and  that  no 
man's  life,  liberty,  or  property  should  bo  taken  from  him,  ex- 
cept by  the  judgment  of  his  peers  and  the  law  of  the  land. 
In  so  far  as  it  affected  the  king,  it  merely  restrained  his  roy- 
al prerogative  of  pre-emption  and  purveyance,  by  which  he 
had  been  allowed,  by  means  of  purveyors,  to  take  whatever 
property  of  the  citizen  he  needed,  without  his  consent,  and 
at  whatever  price  lie  saw  fit  to  pay,  and  to  impress  the  car- 
riages and  horses  of  a  subject  to  do  his  business.  And,  in 
order  to  show  that  these  old  barons  felt  keenly  a  sense  of 
justice  themselves,  and  had  a  just  appreciation  of  it  in  otfi- 
ers,  it  contained  this  memorable  sentence:  "  \ye  will  sell  to 
no  man,  we  will  not  deny  or  delay  to  any  man,  riglit  or  jus- 
tice." 

Wherein,  by  all  this,  did  the  king  surrender  any  thing  that 
ought,  in  right  and  justice,  to  belong  to  the'crown?  One 
would  suppose  that  if  the  citizens  of  a  country  are  entitled 
to  any  sort  of  freedom,  or  to  have  any  share  at  all  in  the 
management  of  affairs,  some  provisions  of  this  kind  are  in- 
dispensable. And  yet  we  find  those  kings  of  England  who 
were  the  mere  creatures  and  tools  of  the  pope  resolved  upon 
denying  them  to  the  people ;  and  the  popes,  under  pretense 
of  being  divinely  required  to  do  so,  releasing  them  from  their 
solemn  oaths  to  observe  them.    The  plain  and  obvious  mean- 

31 


482  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  ^O^yER. 

ing  of  all  which  is,  that,  according  to  the  law  of  the  papacy  as 
it  was  the-n  understood  and  acted  on  by  infallible  popes,  tlie 
people  of  England  Avere  not  entitled  to  have  any  share  in  the 
affairs  of  their  own  government,  for  the  reason  that,  if  they 
did,  the  power  of  the  papacy  would  be  wa^akened  and  the 
law  of  God  violated!  And  such  was  the  inevitable  and  log- 
ical result  of  the  doctrine  of  divine  right  as  understood  and 
announced  by  Innocent  III.,  and  such  remains  to-day  its  in- 
evitable and  logical  result  as  understood  and  re -announced 
by  Pius  IX.  What  was  the  law  of  the  papacy  then  is  its 
law  yet.  Admit  the  law  to  exist,  and  its  consequences  can 
not  be  escaped  —  they  inevitably  follow,  as  effect  follows 
cause.  Streams  do  not  more  certainly  find  their  way  to  the 
sea  than  it  follows,  from  the  recognition  of  the  divine  right 
of  kings  and  popes,  that  they  become  the  sovereign  masters 
of  the  world,  and  all  mankind  their  slaves. 


WYCLIFFE  AND  THE  LOLLARDS.  483 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

Religious  Persecution  antedates  Protestantism.  —  Lucius  III.  and  Innocent 
III.  persecute  the  Waldenses  and  Albigenses. — The  Fourth  Lateran  Coun- 
cil.— The  Third  Canon  provides  for  extirpating  Heretics,  and  taking  away 
their  Country. — Law  of  the  Church. — Acted  upon  in  the  Fifteenth  Centu- 
ry by  Innocent  VIII. — The  Practice  of  Innocent  III.  under  it. — Persecu- 
tion made  a  Religious  Duty. — Reformation  in  Germany. — Luther  and  the 
Pope. — Henry  VIII.  and  the  Pope  quarrel  about  Supremacy,  not  Faith. — 
Protestants  do  not  assist  Him. — The  Pope  releases  his  Subjects  from  their 
Allegiance. — Their  Adherents  persecute  each  Other. — More  and  Fisher. 
— Henry  VIII.  always  a  Roman  Catholic  in  Faith. — He  persecutes  Re- 
formers and  Papists. — Edward  VI.  the  first  Protestant  King. — He  does 
not  persecute  Papists. — Gives  the  Crown  to  Lady  Jane  Grey. — Mary,  the 
Rightful  Heir,  proclaimed  Queen.  —  Her  Promise  to  the  Reformers  that 
they  should  not  be  disturbed  in  their  Religion. — She  refuses  to  be  bound 
by  her  Promise. — The  Teachings  of  Rome. — Mary's  Measures  all  Papal. — 
Her  Persecution  of  Protestants. — Her  Marriage  to  Philip  of  Spain. — The 
Result  of  the  League  between  Pope  Paul  III.  and  Charles  V. — Cardinal 
Pole. — Dictates  Policy  of  the  English  Government. — Persecutions  con- 
tinue.—  Hooper,  Latimer,  and  Ridley. — Elizabeth.  —  She  persecutes  both 
Papists  and  Protestants. — Is  educated  in  the  School  of  Rome.' — Only 
seeks  to  substitute  Imiievial  Protestantism  fn-  Imperial  Romanism. 

It  was  impossible,  in  the  very  nature  of  things,  tliat  the 
condition  of  affairs  portrayed  in  the  last  chapter  could  long- 
exist  in  England  without  some  material  change.  The  bar- 
ons had  placed  themselves  between  the  people  and  the  king, 
and  were  the  representatives  of  principles  of  civil  polity 
which  they  could  not  now  surrender  without  an  abandon- 
ment of  the  best  interests  of  the  country  and  their  own  hon- 
or. The  Lollards,  under  the  lead  of  Wycliffe,  were  similar- 
ly situated,  as  it  regarded  the  principles  of  religious  belief 
and  the  affairs  of  the  Church.  Upon  one  point  they  agreed ; 
that  is,  the  necessity  for  reform.  The  barons  were  laboring 
to  reform  the  State  ;  the  Lollards,  the  Church.  The  barons 
were  not  ready  to  concede  that  the  king  was  the  State ;  nor 
were  the  Lollards  ready  to  concede^  that  the  pope  was  the 


484  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

Church.  Such  concessions  on  the  part  of  both  of  them  would 
have  given  to  absolutism  a  perfect  triumph  over  all  the  an- 
cient liberties,  and  would  have  left  England  completely  sub- 
dued. She  would  then  have  been,  in  fact,  a  fief  of  the  Holy 
See,  with  no  claim  whatever  to  an  independent  national  ex- 
istence. With  her  Parliament  constituted  as  it  then  was, 
subordinated  to  the  king,  and  with  the  king  subordinated  to 
the  pope,  the  people  would  have  borne  the  same  relations  to 
the  papacy  that  the  people  of  the  Papal  States  did — that  of 
entire  dependence.  The  pope,  as  a  thorough  politician,  could 
see  all  this,  and  therefore  left  no  possible  means  unemployed 
to  hold  both  the  barons  and  the  Lollards  in  subjection.  For, 
whatever  else  he  may  have  seen,  it  must  have  been  appar- 
ent to  him  that,  unless  the  reform  sought  for  by  each  was 
speedily  checked,  they  would  both  ultimately  reach  some 
common  point  of  union  which  would  make  them  strong 
enough  to  materially  weaken  both  the  papal  and  the  king- 
ly power.  As  the  controversy  waxed  warmer  and  warmer, 
the  respective  parties  became  more  earnest  and  aggressive ; 
th'e  barons  more  determined  not  to  yield ;  the  Lollards  more 
resolved  upon  Church  reform;  and  the  pope  and  the  king 
more  resolved  upon  keeping  the  Church  and  the  State  so 
united  that  their  combined  power  would  be  sufficient  to 
suppress  all  free  inquiry,  and  to  keep  tiie  people  in  a  condi- 
tion of  vassalage. 

It  was  an  issue  between  power  and  right — the  former  rep- 
resented by  the  pope  and  the  king,  the  latter  by  the  peo- 
ple, in  civil  affairs  under  the  lead  of  the  barons,  and  in  the 
affairs  of  the  Church  under  the  lead  of  the  Lollards.  As 
in  all  such  controversies,  power  has  invariably  resorted  to 
force  to  keep  itself  in  place,  so  it  did  in  this.  Tliis  force, 
however,  did  not  proceed  exclusively  from  the  King  and  Gov- 
ernment of  England,  inasmuch  as  by  this  time  the  influences 
of  the  combined  opposition  had  become  too  great  for  open 
resistance  by  the  king  and  Parliament.  But  as  the  pope 
had  assumed  to  himself  the  divine  prerogative  of  governing 
the  country,  both  in  its  civil  and  ecclesiastical  policy,  and 
held  the  king  in  complete  subjugation,  the  Church  was  re- 
lied on  as  furnishing,  through  its  ecclesiastical  organization, 
whatsoever  was  necessary  in  that  direction  to  accomplish 


INTOLERANCE  AND  PERSECUTION.  4S5 

the  desired  end.     The  pope's  recognized  right  of  dictation 
to  the  king  made  him  responsible  for  the  oppressive  meas- 
ures resorted  to  by  the  latter ;  while  his  position  as  the  in- 
fallible head  of  the  Church  made  him  equally  responsible 
for  the  oppressive  measures  of  the  Church.    It  is  manifestly 
true  that  the  principles  of  Magna  Charta  would  have  gone 
into  immediate  effect  in  England  but  for  the  interference  of 
the  pope ;  for  if  he  had  not  intervened  between  the  king 
and  the  people  by  employing  the  authority  of  the  Church 
to  release  the  king  from  the  obligation  of  his  oath,  the  bar- 
ons, backed  by  the  people,  would  have  been  able  to  hold 
liim  to  his  promise.     And  thus  we  find  all  the  measures  of 
compulsion  employed  against  the  barons  and  the  Lollards 
traceable  directly  to  the  papacy,  and  made  effectual,  as  far 
as  they  could  be,  by  means  of  the  immense  number  of  for- 
eign ecclesiastics  scattered  throughout  the  kingdom,  who, 
as  the  emissaries  of  the  pope,  dictated  to  the  king  whatso- 
ever measures  were  necessary  to  keep  the  people  in  check. 
And  hence  we  find  also  that   a  measure  of  ecclesiastical 
policy  was  adopted,  and  made  a  part  of  the  canon  law  of 
the  Churchy  during  the  pontificate  of  Innocent  III,  which 
makes  the  papacy  immediately  and  directly  responsible  for 
all  the  force  and  persecution  employed,  not  only  in  England, 
but  elsewhere,  to  keep  the  people  in  subjugation,  and  re- 
press reform  both  in  State  and  Church.     In  the  year  1215, 
the  Fourth  Lateran  Council  was  held  in  Rome,  under  the  di- 
rect personal  guidance  of  Innocent  III.,  to  whom,  as  already 
shown,  King  John  surrendered  the  crown  of  England.    This 
is  conceded  to  have  been  the  twelfth  Ecumenical  Council, 
and  its  enactments  are,  consequently,  regarded  as  part  of 
the  canon  law,  equally  binding  upon  the  faithful  at  all  times, 
as  much  so  now  as  when  they  were  originally  passed.     In 
one  canon  adopted  by  this  council  certain  heresies  were  con- 
demned ;  in  another,  heretics  w^re  excommunicated  ;  and  in 
another,  it  was  provided  that  they  should  be  exterminated. 

Here  we  reach  a  point  of  vast  importance  to  the  pres- 
ent times,  and  ground  on  which  it  is  necessary  and  right 
that  we  should  tread  with  great  caution,  so  as  not  to  mis- 
lead ourselves  or  others.  For  if  it  be  true  that  what  is  here 
alleged  constitutes  a  part  of  the  law*  of  the  Roman  Church, 


480  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

having,  by  the  action  of  a  general  council  and  the  assent  of 
a  pope,  the  impress  of  infallibility  stamped  upon  it,  then  it 
will  not  do  to  say,  as  the  papal  writers  do,  that  persecution 
arose  out  of  Protestantism  and  was  of  Protestant  growth ; 
for  it  must  be  observed  that  at  the  time  referred  to  there 
was  no  such  thing  as  Protestantism  known.  Wycliffe,  who 
has  been  properly  called  the  "Morning-star  of  the  Reforma- 
tion," was  not  born  till  the  year  1324,  and  tlierefore  the  Lol- 
lards, Avho  were  his  followers  in  England,  had  not  arisen. 
The  Waldenses,  or  Vaudois,  had  been  excommunicated  for 
heresy  by  Lucius  III,  who  was  pope  from  the  year  1181  to 
1185;  and  they  were  afterward  condemned  for  teachino-, 
contrary  to  the  practice  of  the  Roman  Church,  that  the  un- 
worthiness  of  the  clergy  rendered  them  incapable  of  their 
ministry.(')  Pope  Innocent  III.  inaugurated  measures  of  his 
own  accord  in  the  year  1198 — the  first  of  his  pontificate — to 
extirpate  the  Albigenses.  The  next  year  he  ordered  their 
estates  to  be  confiscated.  He  ordered  the  abbots  and  monks 
not  only  to  preach  against  them, but  to  "excite  the  princes 
and  people  to  extirpate  them,  and  to  form  a  crusade  against 
them."  Raynwnd,  Count  of  Toulouse,  a  leader  among  the 
Albigenses,  caused  one  of  these  missionaries  to  be  assassin- 
ated, for  which  he  was  required  to  retract  his  errors,  and  to 
deliver  up  several  of  liis  towns  to  the  pope  as  the  price  of 
his  absolution  —  which  was  granted  him.  After  this  was 
done,  as  the  crusaders  had  no  further  contest  with  Ray- 
mond, they  turned  their  arms  against  the  town  of  Beziers, 
where  the  Albigenses  were  fortified,  besieged,  took,  and  burn- 
ed the  town,  and  put  all  the  inhabitants  "to  the  edge  of  the 
sword. "(^)  The  particular  lieresies,  therefore,  with  which  the 
Church  had  to  deal  during  the  pontificate  of  Innocent  III. 
w^ere  those  of  the  Waldenses  and  the  Albigenses;  and,  con- 
sequently, it  is  to  these  that  the  decrees  of  the  Fourth  Lat- 
eran  Council  were  specially  directed.  All  this  antedated  the 
existence  of  the  Lollards  and  the  birth  of  Protestantism;  but 
when  Protestantism  began  subsequently  to  arise,  the  law  of 
the  Church  was  already  prepared  to  visit  upon  the  Protest- 
ants the  same  measure  of  pontifical  vengeance  as  had  been 

C)  Dn  Pin,  vol.  xi.,  p.  147.  O  Ibid.,  pp.  150,  lol. 


THE  rOURTII  LATEHAN  COUNCIL.  487 

visited  upon  the  inoffensive  Waldenses  and  Albigenses.  The 
torch  of  persecution,  lighted  for  the  latter,  was  kept  continu- 
ally aflame,  in  readiness  for  the  former. 

The  Fourth  Council  of  Lateran  being  assembled  to  deal, 
among  other  things,  with  the  heresies  then  existing,  it  was 
considered  necessary  that  it  should  be  so  attended  as  to  rep- 
resent the  Universal  Church.  To  eflect  this,  two  years  were 
permitted  to  pass  between  the  time  when  it  was  called  by 
Innocent  III.  and  its  meeting,  in  November,  1215.  It  con- 
tained four  hundred  and  twelve  bishops  in  person,  eight  hun- 
dred abbots  and  priors,  and  a  great  many  deputies  of  absent 
prelates  who  were  excused  from  attending.  There  were  also 
embassadors  from  the  following  courts :  Constantinople,  Sic- 
ily, Germany,  France,  England,  Hungary,  Jerusalem,  Cyprus, 
Arragon,  and  from  those  of  other  princes.  And  thus  it  had 
all  the  power  and  authority  which  could  be  conferred  on  it  by 
the  Church.  Even  those  who  denied  the  personal  infallibil- 
ity of  the  pope  accepted  all  the  decrees  of  such  a  council  as 
infallible,  equally  binding  as  if  God,  by  a  visible  manifesta- 
tion, had  sent  them  down  from  heaven.  To  say,  however, 
of  the  canons  of  this  council  that  they  were  the  deliberate 
action  of  those  who  composed  it  would  be  contrary  to  the 
fact.  Du  Pin,  referring  to  the  canons  upon  discipline,  says  : 
"'Tis  certain  that  these  canons  were  not  made  by  the  coun- 
cil, but  by  Innocent  III.,  who  presented  them  to  the  council 
ready  drawn  iq?^  and  ordered  them  to  be  read,  and  that  the 
prelates  did  not  enter  into  any  debate  iqyon  them^  but  that 
tJieir  silence  loas  taken  for  an  approbation  P''{^^  Neverthe- 
less, they  became  as  much  the  law  of  the  Church  as  if  they 
]iad  been  debated  and  voted  on.  Any  violation  of  the  doc- 
trine of  passive  obedience  was  only  another  form  of  heresy. 
The  third  canon  of  this  General  Council  stands  in  history 
without  any  parallel.  And  in  order  that  the  reader  may 
see  this  for  himself,  it  is  deemed  most  expedient  to  pass  by 
what  is  said  of  it  by  Protestant  writers,  and  quote  the  pre- 
cise words  of  Du  Pin,  not  merely  on  account  of  his  great 
learning  and  erudition,  but  because  of  the  conspicuous  posi- 
tion he  occupied  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.     He  says : 

Q)  Du  Pin,  vol.  xi.,  p.  95. 


488  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

"In  tlie  third  canon  tliey  excommunicated  and  anathema- 
tized all  the  lieretics  who  oppose  tlie  Catholic  and  orthodox 
faith,  as  before  explained:  and  'tis  therein  ordered  that  the 
lieretics  shall  be  delivered  up,  after  their  condemnation,  to  the 
secular  powers,  or  to  their  officers,  to  be  punished  according 
to  their  demerits, the  clerks  being  first  degraded;  tliat  theiT- 
goods  shall  be  confiscated,  if  they  be  laics;  and  if  clerks, 
tlien  they  shall  be  applied  to  the  use  of  the  Church;  that 
those  who  lie  under  violent  suspicions  of  heresy  shall  be 
likewise  anathematized,  if  they  do  not  give  proofs  of  their 
innocence,  and  they  shall  be  avoided  till  they  have  given 
satisfaction ;  and  if  they  be  in  a  state  of  excommunication 
during  a  year,  they  shall  be  condemned  as  heretics;  that 
the  lords  shall  be  admonished  and  advised  by  ecclesiastical 
censures  to  take  an  oath  that  they  will  extirpate  heretics 
and  excommunicate  persons  who  shall  be  within  their  terri- 
tories; that  if  they  neglect  to  do  it  after  admonition,  they 
shall  be  excommunicated  by  the  metropolitan  and  bishops 
of  the  province;  and  in  case  they  persist  a  year  without 
making  satisfaction,  the  sovereign  pontiff  shall  be  advised 
thereof,  that  so  he  may  declare  their  vassals  absolved  from 
their  oath  of  fealt}^,  and  bestow  their  lands  upon  such  Cath- 
olics as  will  seize  upon  them,  who  shall  be  the  lawful  pos- 
sessors of  them,  by  extirpating  heretics,  and  preserving  the 
purity  of  the  faith  in  them,  but  without  prejudice  to  the 
right  of  the  superior  lord,  provided  he  offer  no  obstruction 
or  hinderance  to  the  putting  this  ordinance  in  execution. 
The  same  indulgences  are  granted  to  those  Catholics  as 
shall  undertake  to  extirpate  heretics  hj  force  of  arms  as  are 
granted  to  those  who  go  to  the  Holy  Land.  They  excom- 
municated those  who  entertained,  protected,  or  sui)ported 
heretics,  and  declare  that  those  who  shall  be  excommuni- 
cated upon  that  account,  if  they  do  not  make  satisfaction 
within  a  year,  shall  be  declared  infamous,  and  divested  of  all 
offices,  as  well  as  of  votes  in  the  elections  ;  that  they  shall 
not  be  admitted  as  evidences;  that  they  shall  be  deprived  of 
the  faculty  of  making  a  will,  or  succeeding  to  an  estate;  and, 
lastly,  that  they  may  not  perform  the  functions  of  any  of- 
fice. 'Tis  likewise  further  ordered  that  those  who  will  not 
avoid  the  company  of  such  persons  as  are  by  the  Church 


EXTERMINATION  OF  HERETICS.  489 

denounced  excommunicate  shall  be  excommunicated  them- 
selves till  they  have  given  satisfaction.  But,  above  all,  ec- 
•clesiastics  are  forbidden  to  administer  the  sacraments  to 
them,  to  give  them  Christian  burial,  to  receive  their  alms  or 
oblations,  upon  pain  of  being  suspended  from  the  functions 
of  their  orders,  wherein  they  may  not  be  re-established  M'ith- 
out  a  special  indulto  from  the  pope.  The  same  punishment 
is  likewise  inflicted  on  the  regulars,  and,  besides  this,  that 
they  be  not  any  longer  tolerated  in  the  diocese  wherein 
they  shall  have  committed  such  a  fiict.  All  those  are  ex- 
communicated who  shall  dare  to  preach  without  having  re- 
ceived a  license  from  the  Holy  See  or  a  Catliolic  bishop. 
Lastly,  the  archbishops  and  bishops  are  obliged  to  visit  in 
person,  or  by  their  archdeacons  or  by  other  persons,  once  or 
twice  a  year,  the  dioceses  where  it  is  reported  that  there  are 
any  heretics,  and  to  put  a  certain  number  of  inhabitants 
under  their  oath  to  discover  to  the  bishop  such  heretics  as 
may  be  detected.  They  are  likewise  enjoined  to  cause  tlie 
accused  to  appear,  and  to  punish  them  if  they  do  not  clear 
themselves,  or  if  they  relapse  after  they  have  been  cleared. 
Lastly,  the  bishops  are  threatened  to  be  deposed  if  tliey  neg- 
lect to  purge  their  dioceses  from  herctics."('') 

When  we  remember  that  Innocent  IIL  based  his  right  to 
interfere  with  the  domestic  policy  of  the  nations  upon  the 

(")  Da  Pin,  vol.  xi.,  pp.  9G,  97.  The  duty  of  persecuting  and  exterminating 
heretics  now  became  a  part  of  the  canon  law  of  Rome,  not  merely  by  the  pre- 
vious infallible  act  of  Innocent  III.  liimself,  but  by  force  of  this  decree  of  an 
Ecumenical  Council,  Nearly  three  hundred  years  after  the  time  of  Innocent 
III.,  his  successors  found  a  memorable  occasion  for  enforcing  it  against  the 
peaceful  Vaudois,  for  daring  to  maintain  their  own  religion  in  preference  to 
that  of  Rome.  In  1487,  Innocent  VIII.  fulminated  against  them  a  bull  of 
extermination,  by  which  he  enjoined  all  temporal  powers  to  take  arms  for 
their  destruction.  He  commanded  a  crusade  against  them,  "absolving  be- 
forehand all  who  should  take  part  in  this  crusade  from  all  ecclesiastical  pen- 
alties, general  or  special,  setting  them  free  from  the  obligation  of  vows  which 
they  might  have  made,  legitimating  their  possession  of  goods  which  they 
might  have  wrongfully  acquired,  and  concluding  with  a  promise  of  the  remis-j 
sion  of  all  sins  to  every  one  who  should  slay  a  heretic.  Moreover,  he  annul- 
led all  contracts  subscribed  in  favor  of  the  Vaudois,  commanded  their  domes- 
tics to  abandon  them,  forbade  any  one  to  give  them  any  assistance,  and 
authorized  all  and  sundry  to  seize  upon  their  goods.^' — History  of  the  WaJ~ 
denses,  by  Muston,  vol.  i.,  p.  31. 


490  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

ground  of  the  possession  of  divine  power,  we  sliall  be  tlie 
better  enabled  to  appreciate  tlie  character  and  understand 
the  scope  of  this  extraordinary  part  of  the  canon  law  of 
Rome.  His  power  being  divine,  obedience  to  it,  both  on  the 
part  of  nations  and  individuals,  was  the  inevitable  conse- 
quence. Therefore,  this  decree  of  the  Third  Lateran  Coun- 
cil proceeds  upon  the  idea  that  the  obedieuce  of  the  nations 
had  been  already  secured ;  but  that  if  it  should  be  refused 
the  papacy  possessed  the  same  power  to  punish  them  that  it 
did  to  punish  individuals  for  their  disobedience.  Accord- 
ingly, the  decree  provides  for  the  extirpation  of  all  heretics 
by  force  of  arms,  the  confiscation  of  their  goods,  the  forfeit- 
ure of  all  their  rights  of  property  and  country,  the  seizure 
of  their  territory  by  whomsoever  of  the  faithful  shall  think 
proper  to  do  so,  and  requires  them  to  be  hunted  down  by 
spies  and  detectives,  against  whose  accusations  they  are  re- 
quired to  defend  themselves  by  proving  their  innocence  ! 
It  stands  alone  in  the  world  in  enormity;  and  even  now  it 
chills  the  blood  to  read  of  the  horrible  sufferings  inflicted 
upon  the  poor  unoffending  Waldenses  and  Albigenses,  by 
virtue  of  it,  merely  because  they  would  not  bow  down  be- 
fore the  papacy,  and  agree  to  consider  as  virtues  the  shame- 
less corruptions  and  vices  of  its  court. 

As  it  will  be  necessary  to  refer  to  this  decree  again,  it 
will  be  well  to  inquire,  at  this  point,  what  position  it  occu- 
pies in  the  present  canon  law  of  the  Roman  Church,  Mhich 
Pius  IX.  is  now  laboring  to  make  the  universal  law  of  all 
the  world.  Since  the  council  which  enacted  it  there  have 
been  eight  ecumenical  councils  and  over  eighty  popes,  em- 
bracing a  period  of  over  six  and  a  half  centuries,  and  yet  no 
decree  has  been  enacted  by  any  one  of  these  councils,  and 
no  bull,  or  brief,  or  encyclical  has  ever  been  issued,  by  any 
one  of  all  these  popes,  wherein  it  has  been  declared  that  the 
Third  Lateran  Council  transcended  its  authority,  or  that  its 
third  canon  was  not  a  part  of  the  existing  canon  law  of  the 
Church.  Undoubtedly,  therefore,  it  remains  a  part  of  that 
law  to-day,  to  be  executed  wliensoever  the  pope  shall  think 
it  necessary  to  the  Avelfare  of  the  Church  to  do  so,  and  he 
shall  possess  the  necessary  power. 

In  1839  a  controversy  was  carried  on  in  the  columns  of 


PERSECUTION  lAIADE  A  LAW  OF  THE  CHURCH.       491 

TJie  Charleston  Courier^  in  South  Carolina,  between  the  Rev. 
Richard  Fuller,  a  Baptist  minister,  and  the  Right  Rev.  John 
England,  Roman  Catholic  Bishop  of  Charleston,  who  was 
greatly  distinguished  for  his  learning  and  piety.  In  the 
course  of  it  Mr.  Fuller  charged  that,  by  the  enactment  of 
this  canon  by  tl^e  Fourth  Lateran  Council,  the  Roman  Cath- 
olic Church  had  made  it  a  part  of  the  law  of  its  organiza- 
tion, that  heretics  should  be  persecuted.  Bishop  England 
admitted  that  the  canon  had  been  enacted,  and  set  it  forth 
substantially  as  it  is  copied  above  from  Du  Pin,  but  endeav- 
ored to  break  the  force  of  the  admission  by  insisting  that, 
liaving  been  "a  special  law  for  a  particular  case,"  it  is  not 
now,  therefore,  "a  canon  of  the  Cliurch."  He  also  insisted 
tiiat  as  the  Fourth  Lateran  Council  "  was  not  merely  a  coun- 
cil of  the  Church,  but  it  was  also  a  congress  of  the  civilized 
world,"  therefore  this  canon  was  not  "concerning  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Church,"  but  was  "a  civil  enactment  of  the 
temporal  power  against  persons  they  looked  upon  as  crimi- 
nals."(^)  This  is  puerile,  as  will  appear  to  any  reasoning 
mind  upon  a  moment's  reflection.  This  council  was  one  of 
the  great  general  councils  of  the  Cliurch.  Its  provisions  in 
reference  to  heresy  and  heretics  are  both  special  and  general. 
Its  canons  were  not  enacted  to  meet  special  cases  only,  but 
all  cases  covei-ed  by  them.  The  assemblage  was  ecclesias- 
tical, solely  and  entirely,  so  far  as  it  possessed  power  to  pass 
enactments.  The  ecclesiastical  authorities  of  the  Church 
were  alone  summoned  by  Innocent  III.  to  attend  it.  All 
the  embassadors  from  the  civil  powers  who  were  present 
Avere  there  by  courtesy,  not  by  right.  They  were  not  mem- 
bers of  the  council,  so  as  to  be  entitled  to  vote  upon  ques- 
tions of  either  Church  discipline  or  doctrine.  They  did  not 
vote  upon  these  questions,  but,  as  Du  Pin  says,  the  meas- 
ures were  drawn  up  by  the  pope  and  acquiesced  in  by  the 
bishops.  Therefore,  to  say  that  a  canon  enacted  by  such  a 
council,  nnder  the  direct  auspices  of  Innocent  Ill.,\iid  not 
become  a  part  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  and  take  its 


(^)  "  Letters  concerning  the  Roman  Chancery,"  by  the  Rev.  Richard  Ful- 
ler, of  Beaufort,  South  Carolina,  and  the  Right  Rev.  John  England,  Bishop 
of  Charleston.     Published  under  the  auspices pf  the  latter,  pp.  19G-200. 


492  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

place  in  the  canon  law,  is  the  exhibition  of  a  degree  of  ab- 
surdity into  Avhich  nothing  but  sheer  necessity  could  have 
driven  such  a  man  as  Bishop  England.  But  if  there  were 
any  doubt  about  it  when  he  attempted  this  impotent  apol- 
ogy, there  is  none  now,  since  the  decree  of  infallibility  is 
broad  enough  and  goes  back  far  enough  to  embrace  this  en- 
actment as  the  infallible  word  of  God.  It  takes  in,  as  we 
have  seen  heretofore,  all  that  has  been  done  by  the  popes  in 
all  the  past  centuries,  all  that  may  be  done  now,  and  what- 
soever may  be  done  in  the  future. 

Was  not  Innocent  III.  an  infallible  pope?  No  papist  will 
deny  that.  Then,  without  the  decree  of  the  Fourth  Lateran 
Council,  he  prescribed  extermination  as  the  remedy  against 
the  heresy  of  the  Waldenses  and  Albigenses,  and,  consequent- 
ly, against  all  heresy.  Thus  this  method  of  persecution  be- 
came a  part  of  the  canon  law,  and  therefore  a  part  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Church,  by  his  infallible  act  alone.  And 
when  afterward  he  compelled  this  general  council  to  affirm 
and  ratify  what  he  had  done  and  declared  by  a  solemn  de- 
cree, unanimously  passed  by  the  representatives  of  the  whole 
Church,  persecution  became  so  embodied  in  the  law  of  the 
Church  that  no  earthly  authority  can  remove  it.  Whether 
he  alone,  as  he  claimed,  and  as  Pius  IX.  now  claims,  possess- 
ed all  the  divine  power;  or  whether,  as  the  Galilean  Chris- 
tians insisted,  it  was  in  his  hands  when  acting  jointly  with 
the  council,  does  not  change  the  question.  According  to  ei- 
ther, the  decree  as  enacted  was  the  exercise  of  a  divine  pow- 
er, and  therefore  became  part  of  the  faith.  Consequently,  if 
there  had  even  been  an  attempt  made  to  repeal,  vacate,  or 
set  it  aside,  it  must  have  failed  for  the  want  of  power;  for 
the  law  of  God  is  unchangeable.  There  having  been  no  such 
attempt,  however,  this  persecuting  decree  is  as  binding  upon 
the  faithful  to-day  as  it  was  the  day  it  was  enacted. 

The  "temporal  powers"  had  nothing  to  do  with  its  enact- 
ment. They  were  held  by  the  pope  to  be  the  mere  instru- 
ments to  secure  its  execution.  He  used  them  for  that  pur- 
pose ;  and  that  is  what  is  meant  by  the  theory  which  per- 
mits the  Church  to  teach  the  State  its  duty — in  the  domain 
of  faith  and  morals !  They  neither  enacted  any  such  laws 
themselves,  nor  authorized  their  embassadors  at  this  council 


NECESSITY  OF  EEFORM.  49S 

to  legislate  in  reference  to  their  domestic  and  internal  pol- 
icy. The  council  dealt  with  the  aiFairs  of  the  Church,  and 
the  laws  it  jDassed  were  considered  above  those  of  the  states. 
Whatever  nation  disobeyed  them  was  heretical,  and  forfeit- 
ed its  right  to  exist !  Whatever  individual  disobeyed  tliem 
was  cut  off  by  excommunication  !  The  fact,  therefore,  can 
not  be  escaped  by  any  sophistry  that  the  persecution  of  lier- 
etics  is  commanded  by  the  canon  law.  And  thus  we  are  en- 
abled to  understand  the  condition  of  things  existing  in  En- 
gland after  the  pontificate  of  Innocent  III,  who  set  the  ex- 
ample of  persecuting  heretics,  or  of  causing  them  to  be  per- 
secuted, whicli  his  successors  were  very  willing  to  follow. 
And  the  imbecile  kings  of  England  were  quite  as  willing 
to  obey  them ;  for,  not  only  by  the  letter  of  this  law  of  tho 
Church,  but  by  the  action  of  the  infallible  Innocent  III,  they 
were  taught  to  foresee  that  an  act  of  disobedience  to  the 
pope  would  be  construed  into  heresy,  and  cost  them  their 
crowns  and  kingdom.  And  looking  back,  through  the  lapse 
of  years,  to  the  condition  in  which  England  must  have  been 
placed  by  the  prevailing  policy  at  that  time,  we  can  not  fail 
to  see  how  necessary  it  was  for  the  barons  to  demand  and 
to  adhere  to  the  provisions  of  Magna  Charta  as  the  means 
of  securing  civil  liberty,  and  for  the  Lollards  to  demand  re- 
form in  the  Church  as  the  means  of  securing  religious  liberty. 

But  we  can  see,  too,  that  it  was  impossible  for  Protestant- 
ism to  rise  immediately  out  of  this  condition  of  affairs.  It 
had  to  await  the  slow  progress  of  events  elsewhere,  espe- 
cially in  Germany.  Both  there  and  in  England  the  load  of 
papal  oppression  was  too  heavy  to  be  thrown  off  at  once. 
Therefore  we  are  enabled  to  account  for  the  fact,  that  in  its 
first  forms,  during  its  terrible  struggles  for  existence,  it  re- 
tained somewhat  the  impress  left  upon  it  by  the  papacy; 
and  never,  in  fact,  reached  the  point  of  full  development  un- 
til it  obtained  a  new  field  of  operation  in  the  United  States. 
Reforms  are  never  the  result  of  sudden  impulses.  Like  the 
plant  which  enlarges  by  accretion,  they  are  wrought  out  by 
the  force  of  opinion  gradually  developed. 

It  is  well  understood  that  in  Germany,  as  well  as  in  En- 
gland, for  many  years  before  the  Reformation,  the  ecclesias- 
tical and  political  alliance  between  the  reigning  monarchs 


494  THE  TAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

and  the  papacy  had  been  complete,  and  comparatively  un- 
disturbed.    Owing  to  the  imbecility  of  some  of  the  mon- 
archs   and  the  inordinate  ambition  of  others,  the  German 
people   were  reduced,  through  instrumentalities  like  those 
employed  in  England,  to  dependence  upon  the  popes,  who 
claimed  that  they  possessed  divine   authority  to   regulate 
their  domestic   affairs  also.      By  virtue  of  their   con'ceded 
power  to  appoint  all  the  prelates  of  the  Church,  and  to  ex- 
act from  them  oaths  of  fidelity  to  themselves,  they  had  suc- 
ceeded in  building  up  an  ecclesiastical  empire,  which  they 
maintained  among  the  German  people  in  entire  independ- 
ence of  the  Government  and  its  laws— a  state  of  things  pre- 
cisely similar  to  that  which  Pius  IX.  is  now  trying  to  bi-ino- 
about.      The   hierarchy  which   composed  this  independent 
body  was  freed  from   all  responsibility  to  the  German  au- 
thorities, no  matter  what  enormity  its  members  perpetrated 
upon  society,  or  what  the  nature  and  extent  of  their  usurpa- 
tions.    They  looked  alone  to  Rome  for  the  approval  or  dis- 
approval of  their  conduct.     Whatsoever  the  pope  command- 
ed them  to  do,  they  did— peaceably,  if  the  people  submitted, 
but  forcibly  if  they  did  not.     Such  enormous  power  as  this 
naturally  bred  arrogance  and  covetousness ;  and  as  the  popes 
have  at  all  times  required  large  sums  of  money  to  maintain 
the  splendor  and  magnificence  of  their  courts,  they  emplo}^- 
ed  it  for  the  accumulation  of  large  wealth,  not  only  at  Rome, 
but  among  themselves.     With  this  wealth  in  their  posses- 
sion, these  prelates  became  more  and  more  exacting — know- 
ing that  they  were  esteemed  by  the  popes  in  proportion  to 
the  extent  of  the  contributions  they  levied  upon  the  people. 
It  is  not  at  all  to  be  wondered  at  that  the  Germans,  like  the 
English,  became  restless  and  dissatisfied  under  the  crushing 
pressure  of  such  a  burden  as  this.     All  the  tendencies  of  their 
minds  were  toward  freedom,  in  the  defense  of  which  they  had 
always  been  in  the  foremost  rank.      But  on  account  of  their 
devotion  to  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  and  the  belief,  con- 
stantly inculcated  in  their  minds  by  the  clergy,  that  they 
were  indebted  to  it  for  all  the  Christianizing  and  civilizing 
influences  they  possessed,  they  patiently  endured  their  sub- 
mission till  they  could  bear  it  no  longer.     They  at  last  came 
to  realize  that  the  question  was  simply  one  of  life  or  death 


THE  EEFORMATION  IN  GERMANY.  495 

to  tlieir  nation — that  it  was  impossible  for  Germany  ever  to 
acquire  an  independent  and  commanding  position  among  the 
other  nations  so  long  as  this  hierarchical  power  was  permit- 
ted to  maintain  its  ascendency.  And  herein  we  nndoul)tedly 
find  the  real  origin  of  the  Reformation  in  Germany — accord- 
ing to  Hallam,  "its  predisposing  canse."(^)  Lnther  quarrel- 
ed Avith  the  pope  about  matters  of  religious  faitli,  and  when 
the  people  of  Germany  saw  this  vast  power,  with  all  its  ec- 
clesiastical weapons  drawn,  threatening  him  with  the  terrible 
vengeance  of  the  papacy,  they  took  sides  with  him,  not  at 
first  on  account  of  his  religious  opinions  merely,  but  because 
the  time  had  come  for  them  to  assert  their  true  German  man- 
hood, and  to  throw  off  the  yoke  of  temporal  bondage  which 
the  papacy  had  placed  upon  their  necks.  And  thus  a  single 
brave  and  unterrified  man  was  enabled  to  multiply  his  army 
of  reformers  into  an  unconquerable  host,  whose  ultimate  vic- 
tory over  the  pope  consisted,  not  alone  in  the  introduction 
of  the  Reformed  religion,  but  in  marking  out  new  p;iths  for 
the  modern  nations  —  paths  which  pointed,  with  marvelous 
precision,  toward  that  grandest  achievement  in  histoiy,  the 
American  Revolution. 

The  Reformation  in  Germany  did  not  immediately  extend 
itself  into  England  ;  for  Henry  YIIL,  who  was  a  bigoted  pa- 
pist, occupied  the  throne  at  a  time  when  he  had  the  pow- 
er to  resist  its  influence,  and,  in  order  to  keep  himself  in  fa- 
vor with  the  pope,  wrote  a  reply  to  Luther,  for  which  he 
was  flattered  with  the  title  "defender  of  the  faith."  It  was 
his  greatest  pride  to  keep  in  existence  in  England  the  same 
exacting  and  ambitious  hierarchy  against  which  tlie  Ger- 
man people  were  getting  ready  to  rebel.  Between  these  ec- 
clesiastical princes  and  himself  there  was  perfect  accord  in 
this:  that  each  should  sustain  the  power  of  the  other,  at 
every  hazard,  in  order  to  keep  the  people  in  subjection,  and 
prevent  them  from  having  any  voice  in  the  management  of 
public  affairs.  They  were  held  together  by  the  cohesion  of 
a  common  faith,  which  taught,  as  had  always  been  taught 
by  the  papacy,  the  divine  right  of  kings  and  the  divine  right 
of  popes  above  that  of  kings,  which  latter  enabled  the  popes, 

C)  "Constitutional  History  of  England,"  by  Hallam,  vol.  i.,  p.  137. 


496  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

as  "  vicegerents  of  God,"  to  sit  in  judgment  over  all  tbe 
earth,  with  the  right  to  command  whatsoever  should  aug- 
ment their  power,  and  to  forbid  whatsoever  should  curtail 
it.  Like  the  people  of  Germany,  those  of  England  were  held 
down  by  an  oppressive  weight  of  tyranny  at  the  beginning 
of  their  Reformation. 

Henry  VIII.  was  a  vicious  and  unprincipled  monarch,  con- 
sistent in  only  two  things — the  constant  indulgence  of  his 
evil  inclinations,  and  an  equally  constant  adherence  to  the 
chief  doctrinal  dogmas  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  He 
was  never  a  pious  Christian  except  nominally;  no  more  so 
when  he  broke  the  alliance  between  the  Church  in  England 
and  that  at  Rome,  than  when  he  sought  to  win  the  favor  of 
the  pope  by  hurling  his  royal  and  poisoned  shaft  at  Luther's 
head.  And  he  was  never  a  Protestant  except  only  so  far  as 
he  resisted  the  papal  encroachments  upon  the  authority  aud 
prerogatives  of  the  English  crown.  Upon  this  subject,  much 
of  whatsis  called  history  abounds  in  error  and  misstatement. 
It  has  led  many  honest  minds  into  the  belief  that  this  profli- 
gate king  was  at  the  head  of  the  Protestants  of  England. 
The  papal  writers  are  indefotigable  in  maintaining  this  be- 
lief, in  order  to  hold  the  Reformation  responsible  for  his 
vices;  whereas  the  "truth  of  history  "  is,  that  he  never  pro- 
fessed to  be,  and  never  was,  a  Protestant,  in  any  proper  sense 
of  that  term,  but  lived  and  died  in  the  faith  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church !  His  quarrel  with  the  pope  had  nothing 
to  do  with  the  f^iith  of  the  Church.  It  began  about  the  di- 
vorce, but  soon  involved  the  question  of  ecclesiastical  invest- 
itures, by  means  of  which  he  found  the  pope  could  maintain 
in  England  a  power  rival  to  his  own,  if  not  more  formida- 
ble. Upon  these  questions  each  supported  his  position  with 
stubborn  tenacity,  until  the  breach  between  them  became  so 
wide  that  it  could  neither  be  healed  nor  bridged  over.  Tlie 
parties  were  about  equal  in  pertinacity  and  ambition,  nei- 
ther of  them  having  the  slightest  respect  for  the  people,  or 
regard  for  their  political  rights.  As  none  of  the  religious 
dogmas  of  the  Church  were  assailed  by  Henry,  the  contro- 
versy was  simply  a  struggle  for  supremacy  between  two 
sovereigns,  one  of  whom  w^as  the  lawful  king,  and  the  other 
claiming  dominion  over  the  kingdom  in  right  of  divine  ap- 


HENRY  VIII.  A  ROMAN  CATHOLIC.  497 

pointment ;  and  each  of  whom,  to  have  secured  his  triumph, 
would  have  made  galley-slaves  of  all  the  English  people.Q 
The  final  triumph  which  Henry  VIII.  did  win  over  the  pope 
only  changed  the  form  of  English  tyranny,  by  concentrating 
all  the  absolute  power  of  imperialism  in  the  hands  of  one 
despot,  instead  of  leaving  it  to  be  shared  by  two.  It  re- 
mained papal  tyranny  in  substance,  if  not  in  name,  by  the 
preservation  of  that  nefarious  union  between  Church  and 
State  which  had  its  origin  at  Rome  in  the  time  of  Constan- 
tine,  and  which,  wherever  it  has  existed,  has  held  the  people 
in  vassalage. 

Henry  VIII.  and  Pope  Julius  II.  were  both  children  of 
the  Church  of  Rome,  educated  in  the  same  religious  faith, 
and  disciplined  under  the  same  papal  system.  With  each 
of  them  Innocent  III.  was  infallible,  and  the  persecuting  de- 
cree of  the  Fourth  Lateran  Council  was  a  part  of  the  law  of 
the  Church.  When  Henry  felt  the  pressure  of  the  papal 
power  upon  himself,  he  called  upon  the  Protestants  of  Ger- 
many for  assistance  to  enable  him  to  resist  it ;  but  they  re- 
fused the  alliance,  because  they  had  no  sympathy  with  his 
cause,  and  despised  his  iniquities.  Julius,  finding  him  thus 
unsupported,  followed  the  example  of  Innocent  III.,  in  the 
exercise  of  divine  power,  hurled  at  his  head  the  thunders  of 
excommunication,  and  released  all  the  English  people  from 
their  allegiance  to  the  crown,  impiously  pretending  also  that 
he  stood  upon  earth  in  the  place  of  God,  and  that  obedience 
to  him,  in  both  spirituals  and  temporals,  was  necessary  to 
secure  admission  into  heaven.  The  demon  of  persecution 
was  unchained  among  the  followers  of  these  Roman  Cath- 
olic contestants,  each  letting  loose  his  own  blood  -  hounds ; 
and  if  the  distinguished  More  and  Fisher  were  cruelly  mur- 
dered for  their  resistance  to  the  English  oath  of  supremacy, 

C)  John  Milton  says  :  "  Henry  VIII.  was  the  first  that  rent  this  kingdom 
from  the  pope's  suhjection  totally  ;  but  his  quarrel  being  more  about  suprem- 
acy than  other  faultiness  in  religion  that  he  regarded,  it  is  no  marvel  if  he 
stuck  where  he  did.  The  next  default  was  in  the  bishops,  who,  though  they 
had  denounced  the  pope,  they  still  hugged  the  popedom,  and  shared  the  au- 
thority among  themselves,  by  their  six  bloody  articles,  persecuting  the  Prot- 
estants no  slacker  than  the  pope  would  have  donef^^aJSrose^^^orks  of  John 
Milton,  Philadelphia  ed.,  vol.  i.,  pp.  3,  4.      /^?^E  LIb^J^ 

UNIVERSITY 


498  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

which  did  nothing  more  than  place  the  king  above  the  pope, 
their  triers  and  executioners  were  their  own  brethren,  rear- 
ed, educated,  and  nurtured  in  the  same  religious  faith.  No 
drop  of  their  blood  stained  the  hands  of  a  single  Protestant 
Christian.  The  children  of  Rome  shed  the  blood  of  each 
other  with  a  ferocity  akin  to  that  of  wild  beasts.  And  even 
after  all  this,  and  before  the  blood  of  the  victims  had  be- 
come dry,  Paul  III.,  who,  while  cardinal,  had  taken  the  side 
of  Henry  VIII.,  made  an  eifort  to  reconcile  Henry  with  the 
papacy,  there  yet  being  no  important  difference  of  religious 
faith  to  separate  them.  And  a  like  effort  at  reconciliation 
was  made  by  the  Roman  Catholic  king  of  France ;  at  the 
suggestion,  doubtless,  of  the  pope.  The  question,  however, 
being  one  of  mere  supremacy  in  the  government  of  England, 
Henry  was  not  disposed  to  give  up  any  of  his  royal  prerog- 
atives, and  no  compromise  could  be  arranged.  The  Protest- 
ant Christians  stood  aloof  from  the  contest,  awaiting  the  re- 
sult with  anxiety,  of  course,  and  hoping  that  it  would  con- 
tribute to  the  strength  of  their  own  cause.  Their  religious 
faith  received  no  encouragement  from  the  king,  and  had  the 
curse  of  the  pope  resting  upon  it;  so  that  when  the  final  ex- 
pulsion of  the  papal  power  from  England  was  accomplished, 
the  English  Church,  under  Henry  VIIL,  still  retained  the 
leading  tenets  of  faith  it  had  learned  from  Rome.  It  con- 
tinued to -maintain  the  doctrine  of  the  real  presence  of  Christ 
in  the  sacrament  of  the  eucharist.  It  did  not  regard  com- 
munion in  both  kinds  as  at  all  essential.  It  forbade  the 
marriage  of  priests.  It  preserved  the  Romish  custom  of 
encouraging  vows  of  chastity.  It  continued  private  masses 
for  the  dead.  It  enforced  the  duty  of  auricular  confession. 
It  was,  in  fact,  as  much  Roman  Catholic  under  Henry  VIII. 
as  it  had  been  under  Pope  Julius  II.  or  Pope  Paul  HI.,  ex- 
cept that  it  denied  the  temporal  authority  of  the  pope,  and 
his  right,  divine  or  otherwise,  to  interfere  with  and  regulate 
the  domestic  affairs  of  either  the  English  Church  or  na- 
tion. (®)     And  Henry,  to  prove  how  faithful  he  was  to  his 

O  "History  of  the  Church  of  England,"  by  Short;  Appendix  B  to  ch. 
v.,  p.  79;  "History  of  England,"  by  Macaulay,  vol.  i.,  p.  46;  "Constitu- 
tional History  of  England,"  by  Hallam,  vol.  i.,  eh.  ii.  ;  "History  of  En- 
gland," by  liapin,  vol.  viii.,  pp.  20,  21  ;   "History  of  England,"  by  Hume, 


HENRY  VIII.  PERSECUTED  REFORMERS.  499 

Roman  training,  turned  his  persecution  against  the  English 
reformers^  who  were  disposed  to  favor  the  principles  of  the 
Protestant  religion,  the  influence  of  which  was  beginning  to 
be  transferred  from  Germany  to  England,  and  to  unite  with 
similar  influences  already  existing  there. 

The  torch  and  the  rack,  so  flimiliar  to  Rome,  were  no  less 

vol.  iii.,  p.  311 ;  "  History  of  Religious  Thought  in  England,"  by  Hunt,  vol. 
i.,  p.  10.  This  last  author,  speaking  of  the  "Six  Articles"  of  1539,  says, 
"They  are  purely  Roman  Catholic." 

The  following  eminent  Roman  Catholic  authorities  are  directly  upon  this 
point:  Lingard  says,  "The  publication  of  ' the  Articles '  showed  that  the 
king  was  not  disposed  to  dissent  from  the  pontiff  on  doctrinal  matters.'' — 
Lingard's  Hist,  of  Engl.,  vol.  v.,  p.  58. 

Hearing  of  the  death  of  Anne  Boleyn,  Pope  Paul  III,  said  :  "  I  have  long 
besought  God  to  open  his  majesty's  eyes.  It  is  impossible  that  Heaven  should 
have  abandoned  a  prince  who  is  endowed  with  so  many  virtues,  and  who  has 
rendered  so  many  services  to  the  Christian  republic.  Heaven  will  surely  en- 
lighten him.  Now  is  the  time  for  Henry  to  finish  the  noble  work  wiiich  he 
has  commenced  in  defense  of  Christianity.  If  he  return  to  the  bosom  of  the 
Church,  who  is  there  among  the  princes  of  Christendom  that  will  be  able  to 
resist  him  ?     With  Rome  as  his  ally,  the  peace  of  the  world  will  be  secured. 

I  will  unite  with  Henry,  and  we  will  join  our  efforts  to  pacify  the  world 

Let  him  not  doubt  the  affections  of  my  heart."  —  Audin's  Life  of  Henry 
VIII.,  p.  322. 

The  late  Archbishop  Spalding,  of  Baltimore,  says :  "  Notwithstanding 
his  defection  from  the  Church,  Henry  was  still  attached  to  the  ancient  faith,' 
and  he  decided  to  retain  its  principal  articles,  as  well  as  the  ancient  worship. 
In  1536,  he  compiled,  with  the  assistance  of  his  theologians,  a  book  of  "Ar- 
ticles," which  Cromwell  presented  for  signature  to  the  convocation,  and  which 
the  membei'S,  of  course,  subscribed  without  a  word.  These  articles  declare 
that  a  belief  in  the  three  ancient  creeds — the  Apostles',  the  Nicene,  and  the 
Athanasian — is  necessary  to  salvation  ;  that  the  sacraments  of  baptism,  pen- 
ance, and  the  holy  eucharist  are  the  ordinary  means  of  salvation  ;  and  that 
the  use  of  masses,  the  honoring  and  invoking  of  saints,  and  the  usual  cere- 
monies of  the  public  service  "  are  highly  profitable,  and  ought  to  be  retain- 
ed." The  lay  vicar-general  accordingly  issued  his  injunction  to  the  bishops 
and  clergy,  requiring  that  these  articles  should  be  explained  to  the  people, 
should  be  accepted  by  all,  and  reduced  to  practice.  This  was  followed  by  a 
fuller  exposition  of  doctrine,  entitled  "The  Godly  and  Pious  Institution  of 
the  Christian  Man,"  issued  by  the  convocation  on  the  command  of  the  king. 
This  document  strongly  denies  the  possibility  of  salvation  out  of  the  Cath- 
olic Church ;  and  it  inculcates  slavish  passive  obedience  to  the  king  in  the 
same  breath  with  which  it  denounces  the  papal  supremacy." — Hist,  of  the 
Prot.  Ref,  by  M.  I.  Spalding,  D.I).,  5th  ed.,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  103,  104,  citing 
Wilkins's  "  Concil.,"  iii.,  804  ;  apud  Lingard,  vol.  vi.,  pp.  272,  273. 


500  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

terrible  in  the  hands  of  the  English  than  they  were  in  those 
of  the  Roman  pope.  The  difference  was  this  only,  that  Hen- 
ry VIII.,  having  learned  their  use  from  Rome,  employed  them, 
after  he  established  his  English  pontificate,  in  the  torture  of 
both  Roman  Catholics  and  Protestants !  Who  does  not  re- 
member the  account  of  three  of  each,  coupled  two  and  two, 
who  were  carried  out  to  execution  upon  the  same  hurdles ?(*') 
In  a  like  spirit  he  employed  his  royal  power  to  prevent  the 
teachings  of  Luther  from  taking  hold  of  the  English  mind, 
and  punished  those  who  openly  advocated  them,  or  were  sus- 
pected of  doing  so.  The  circulation  of  pamphlets  and  tracts 
written  by  Luther  was  prohibited.  He  forbade  his  subjects 
to  import,  sell,  or  keep  in  their  possession  Tyndal's  transla- 
tion of  the  New  Testament,  "  and  ordered  the  chancellor  and 
the  courts  to  prosecute  any  one  that  should  disobey  his  com- 
mands; and  to  punish,  with  the  utmost  rigor  of  the  law,  the 
abettors  of  the  new  opinions  "(^") — that  is,  the  Protestant 
opinions  that  were  taking  deep  root  in  England  and  Germa- 
ny. And  if  before  his  death  he  abated  these  persecutions,  it 
was  only  because  he  courted  an  alliance  with  the  Protest- 
ants, so  as  to  make  his  power  more  effectual  in  his  contest 
with  the  pope.  He  cared  nothing  for  religion,  but  strug- 
gled hard  for  royal  authority  and  supremacy.  But  death, 
which  strikes  alike  both  the  high  and  low,  laid  its  unsparing 
hand  upon  him  before  he  could  accomplish  such  an  alliance, 
before  Protestantism  had  become  firmly  planted  in  England, 
and  while  he  was  yet,  in  all  the  religious  faith  he  ever  had,  a 
Roman  Catholic !  True,  he  has  extorted  some  praise  from 
portions  of  the  English  people,  and  the  poet  Gray  called  him 

" the  majestic  lord 

Who  broke  the  bonds  of  Rome ! " 

but  these  praises  were  bestowed  because  "they  saw  in  him, 
not  indeed  the  proselyte  of  their  faith,  but  the  subverter  of 

C)  Archbishop  Spalding  refers  to  this  incident  in  strong  terms. — History 
of  the  Prot.  Ref.,  by  Spalding,  vol.  ii.,  p.  105.  Macanlay  says,  Henry  VIII. 
"'sent  to  death,  on  the  same  hurdle,  the  heretic  who  denied  the  real  pres- 
ence and  the  traitor  who  denied  the  royal  supremacy." — Macaulay's  Mis- 
cellanies, article  Nare's  Memoirs  of  Lord  Burleigh,  Philadelphia  ed.,  p.  147. 

('")  "  Life  of  Henry  VIII.,"  by  Audin,  p.  313.  This  is  a  Roman  Catho- 
lie  author. 


HOW  HENKY  VIII.  AIDED  THE  PAPACY.  501 

their  enemies'  power^  the  avenging  minister  of  Heaven,  by 
whose  giant  arm  the  chain  of  superstition  had  been  broken 
and  the  prison  gates  burst  asunder. "(") 

Although  Henry  VHI.  manifestly  designed  to  build  up  an 
independent  Church  in  England,  with  himself  as  its  head, 
which  should  be  freed  from  the  spiritual  and  temporal  au- 
thority of  the  pope,  and  the  influence  of  the  new  doctrines 
of  English  and  German  Protestantism,  yet  it  is  undoubted- 
ly true  that  he  gave  important,  though  undesigned,  aid  to 
both.  By  his  persecutions  he  demonstrated  that  neither 
could  be  suppressed  by  that  means.  But  as  he  had  learned 
these  from  Rome  —  whose  dogmas  have,  since  the  False  De- 
cretals, long  before  the  decree  of  the  Fourth  Lateran  Coun- 
cil, always  embraced,  as  a  part  of  the  faith,  the  doctrine  that 
the  Church  was  bound  to  maintain  its  organization  and  pow- 
er by  force,  if  necessary  —  he  continued  them  throughout  his 
reign,  seemingly  unconscious  that  the  papal  power  was  too 
strong  to  be  immediately  broken,  and  that,  while  he  could 
torture  the  bodies  of  the  Reformers,  he  could  neither  take 
away  from  them  the  right  to  think,  nor  subdue  their  cour- 
age. 

The  immediate  assistance  he  gave  to  Roman  Catholicism 
was  rendered  by  maintaining  the  leading  principles  of  its 
faith.  The  English  people,  as  we  have  seen,  had  been  suffi- 
ciently subdued  by  the  power  of  the  hierarchy  to  become 
passively  submissive  to  all  their  commands.  Being  deprived 
of  the  use  of  the  Bible,  and  shut  out  from  all  the  advantages 
of  intellectual  culture,  the  masses,  though  clinging  to  their 
ancient  liberties  with  intense  affection,  had  not  yet  acquired 
that  sense  of  personality  w^hich  is  absohitely  necessary  both 
to  the  establishment  and  preservation  of  popular  liberty. 
They  remained,  therefore  —  many  from  choice,  but  a  larger 
number  from  fear — still  submissive  to  the  dictation  of  Rome; 
while  the  nobility  vacillated  from  side  to  side,  accordingly 
as  their  interest  and  safety  dictated.  Those  remote  from 
the  cities  —  where  the  papal  exactions  were  not  so  directly 
realized  —  were  the  most  submissive,  because  they  were  the 
most  ignorant,  and  w^ere  kept  under  the  more  immediate  in- 

(")  "  Constitutional  Hist,  of  England,"  by.Hallam,  vol.  i..  ch.  i.,  p.  49. 


502  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

fluence  of  the  monks.  Mr.  Hallatn  says  that  the  citizens  of 
London  and  other  large  towns  "  had  begun  to  acquire  some 
taste  for  the  Protestant  doctrine;"  and  continues: 

"But  the  common  people,  especially  in  remote  countries, 
had  been  used  to  an  implicit  reverence  for  the  Holy  See,  and 
had  suffered  comparatively  little  by  its  impositions.  They 
looked  up  also  to  their  own  teachers  as  guides  in  faith;  and 
the  main  body  of  the  clergy  were  certainly  very  reluctant  to 
tear  themselves,  at  the  pleasure  of  a  disappointed  monarch, 
in  the  most  dangerous  crisis  of  religion,  from  the  bosom  of 
Catholic  unity."('') 

Upon  the  minds  of  this  class  Henry  YHI.  made  but  little 
impression  favorable  to  his  new  theories.  The  belief  very 
properly  entertained  by  them,  that  the  divorce  was  sought 
only  for  the  gratification  of  his  passions,  rendered  them  dis- 
inclined to  acknowledge  his  supremacy.  And  the  monks, 
taking  advantage  of  this,  were  able  to  keep  them  compara- 
tively steadfast  in  their  fidelity  to  the  pope.  The  king  hav- 
ing thus  left  the  fundamental  features  of  their  religious  faith 
undisturbed,  they  remained  at  the  close  of  his  reign  still  un- 
der the  influence  of  the  monks;  while  the  nobility  and  many 
of  the  higher  clergy  remained  as  before,  ready  to  take  the 
strong  side — whether  papal  or  Protestant.  And  thus  Henry 
VIH.  did  not  do  to  Roman  Catholicism  half  the  injury  that 
its  advocates  pretend ;  for  it  can  not  be  disputed  that  he 
left  it  possessed  of  great  vigor  and  strength. 

What  he  did  for  Protestantism  may  be  briefly  summed 
up.  He  taught  the  nation  that  the  papal  sceptre  could  be 
broken,  and  that  the  power  and  influence  of  the  hierarchy 
could  be  checked,  if  not  terminated,  by  compelling  it  to  sub- 
mit to  the  civil  laws  of  the  kingdom,  as  all  other  citizens 
were  required  to  do.  He  put  a  stop  to  the  enormous  ac- 
cumulation of  wealth  in  the  monasteries,  which  had  so  long 
kept  the  people  in  poverty  and  dependence.  He  opened 
the  way,  without  intending  it,  for  the  further  introduction 
of  German  influence  and  of  free  thought.  He  inaugurated 
measures  which  led  to  placing  the  English  Bible  in  the  hands 
of  the  people.     He  taught  the  people  the  necessity  of  not 

O  "  Con.  Hist,  of  Engl.,"  by  Hallam,  vol.  i.,  p.  03. 


HOW  HENRY  VIII.  AIDED  PROTESTANTISM.  503 

forgetting  that  tliey  were  Englishmen,  and  entitled  to  an 
English  nationality  without  being  passive  subjects  of  the 
"King  of  Rome,"  either  by  temporal  or  divine  right.  And 
he  established  a  system  of  measures  which,  in  the  end — how- 
ever designed — steadily  led  them  forward  to  a  point  of  na- 
tional greatness  never  surpassed  by  any  people  upon  earth, 
ancient  or  modern.  Protestantism  gained  strength  by  these 
measures,  and  ultimately  gave  rise  to  many  of  the  most 
cherished  and  important  provisions  of  the  British  Constitu- 
tion. It  still  holds  the  people  of  England  true  to  their 
own  national  fame  and  greatness ;  and  if  they  have  not  yet 
marched  fully  up  to  the  side  of  the  people  of  the  United 
States  in  demanding  the  control  of  their  own  aifairs,  they 
have  advanced  so  far  toward  it,  that  they  no  longer  fear  to 
threaten  royalty  with  their  power,  to  hold  the  lash  of  pub- 
lic rebuke  over  their  aristocracy,  and  to  assert  their  right  to 
that  full  and  complete  protection  which  now  belongs  to  ev- 
ery free-born  Englishman,  whether  he  be  a  peer  in  Parlia- 
ment, a  mechanic  in  his  workshop,  or  a  laborer  in  the  field. 
But  a  little  while  ago,  the  leading  newspaper  in  England, 
and  of  the  world,  expressed  this  thought:  "There  can  be  no 
union  between  the  people  and  the  possessors  of  unjust  priv- 
ileges, and  the  fight  between  them  must  go  on  until  the  peo- 
ple have  won."(^^)  It  is  the  right  to  utter  sentiments  such 
as  this  that  Protestantism  has  vindicated,  and  to  which  the 
policy  of  Henry  VIII.,  unconsciously  to  him,  has  led.  To 
this  extent,  then,  has  he  been  made  the  instrument  in  the 
hands  of  Providence  of  serving  England  and  the  nineteenth 
century ;  and  because  of  this  his  memory  should  not  be  held 
wholly  in  execration.  The  elements  of  character  were  sin- 
gularly mixed  up  in  him.  His  training  and  education  as  a 
papist  led  him  into  errors,  excesses,  and  vices  which  we  may 
condemn,  even  while  crediting  him  with  whatever  of  good 
he  did.  Providence  often  permits  beneficent  results  to  be 
educed  from  the  evil  designs  of  men.  Protestantism  would 
have  lived  and  grown  without  Henry  VIII. ;  but  God  raised 
him  up  within  the  pale  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  so 
that,  becoming  familiar  with  its  policy  and  persecutions,  he 

(")  London  Times,  October ^9th,  1871. 


504  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

might  the  more  effectually  employ  its  own  weapons  to  de- 
stroy its  power  to  harness  down  the  freedom  of  religious 
thought. 

But  Protestantism  in  England  had  to  gain  strength  by 
the  gradual  progress  of  the  Reformation,  which  at  every  step 
was  resisted  by  the  papists  with  desperate  energy.  During 
the  reign  of  Edward  VI.,  son  and  successor  of  Henry  VIII., 
several  measures  were  adopted  which  aided  materially  the 
cause  of  reform,  and  proportionately  weakened  that  of  the 
papacy.  They  were  far  in  advance  of  any  existing  at  the 
death  of  Henry.  Masses  were  abolished,  and  the  cu^  was 
given  to  the  people  in  communion. ('*)  The  jurisdiction  of 
the  ecclesiastical  courts  was  abridged. (^^)  Priests  were  al- 
lowed to  marry. C®)  But  these  and  other  kindred  measures 
only  incensed  the  papists  to  greater  violence  ;  and,  to  avenge 
themselves,  they  engaged  actively  in  stirring  up  insurrec- 
tions against  the  Government.  The  insurrectionists  in  Dev- 
onshire, moved  by  the  priests  and  monks,  set  forth  their  de- 
mands in  fifteen  articles,  and  insisted  upon  the  consent  of 
Edward  to  them.  In  these  they  required — what  is  now  re- 
quired of  the  people  and  Government  of  the  United  States 
—  "that  all  the  general  councils  and  the  canons  of  the 
Church  [of  Rome]  should  be  observed ;"  the  immediate  ob- 
ject of  which  was  to  restore  the  temporal  power  of  the  pope. 
They  also  desired  that  the  mass  should  be  in  Latin ;  that 
images  should  be  set  up;  that  the  priests  should  pray  for 
souls  in  purgatory;  and  that  "^/ie^:)eopZe  should  he  forbidden 
to  read  the  Bible Vi^"")  All  these  demands  being  refused, 
the  rebels  marched  upon  and  besieged  Exeter,  which  was  re- 
lieved by  the  king's  troops,  under  Lord  Russel,  when  the  in- 
surgents were  dispersed.  ("^)  Another  rebellion  was  also  be- 
gun by  the  papists  in  Northampton,  which  was  suppressed 
by  the  Earl  of  Warwick. ('^)  Edward  VI.  did  all  in  his  pow- 
er to  promote  the  cause  of  the  Reformation  by  promptly  re- 
sisting all  these  revolutionary  measures  of  the  papal  party; 
and  so  far  succeeded  that  the  celebrated  Confession  of  Faith 
— consisting  of  forty-two  articles — which  was  the  foundation 

C")  Rapin,  vol.  viii.,  p.  33.  (»')  Ihid.  ('«)  Thid.,  p.  47. 

CO  ihid.,  pp.  58,  59.  Q"")  Ibid.,  p.  60.  ('')  Ibid.,  p.  62. 


EDWAKD  VI.  FIRST  PROTESTANT  KING.  505 

of  the  present  Church  of  England,  was  drawn  up  by  Cran- 
mer  and  Ridley  during  his  reign. (")  This,  says  the  histo- 
rian, was  the  last  mortal  wound  given  to  the  old  religion. 

To  Edward  VI.,  therefore,  justly  belongs  the  honor  of  hav- 
ing been  the^rs^  Protestant  King  of  England;  and  all  true 
history  assigns  to  him  such  honesty  in  the  administration  of 
affairs,  and  such  purity  of  personal  motive,  that,  although  he 
died  at  the  early  age  of  sixteen,  and  reigned  but  seven  years, 
he  was  enabled,  by  his  consistent  policy,  to  leave  an  illustri- 
ous record  of  his  virtues;  and  it  must  ever  be  spoken  to  his 
praise,  that,  youthful  as  he  was,  he  succeeded  in  holding  in 
check  the  bad  passions  which  had  held  their  carnival  during 
the  reign  of  his  father,  and  in  putting  his  foot  firmly  upon 
the  monster  of  persecution.  The  rack  and  the  thumb-screw 
—  infernal  instruments  of  the  papal  Inquisition  —  were  cast 
aside,  and  papists  were  allowed  to  maintain  their  religious 
faith  without  fear  of  torture  or  the  scaffold.  Although  re- 
ligious differences  may  have  led  to  the  conviction  and  exe- 
cution of  his  maternal  uncle,  the  Duke  of  Somerset,  yet  the 
young  king  was  constrained  to  consent  to  his  death  because, 
upon  the  record  of  his  trial,  he  appeared  guilty  of  the  design 
to  seize  upon  his  own  person  and  the  administration  of  the 
Government,  and  for  these  purposes  to  raise  an  insurrection 
in  the  city  of  London. (")  When  he  placed  his  signature  to 
the  death-warrant  of  the  Anabaptist  Joan  Bocher — who  was 
convicted  of  heresy — he  did  so  with  tears  in  his  eyes,  yield- 
ing rather  to  the  persuasions  of  Cranmer,  who  had  been  train- 
ed in  the  school  of  Henry  VIII.,  than  to  his  own  convictions. 
And  it  may  be  fairly  inferred  that  his  assent  to  the  subse- 
quent execution  of  Van  Pare  for  heresy  was  obtained  by  the 
same  influence.  But  of  these  executions  the  papists  did  not 
complain  on  their  own  account,  saying  merely  that  "  the  Re- 
formers were  only  against  burning  when  they  were  in  fear 
of  it  themselves,"(")  and  availing  themselves  of  them  to  stir 
up  disaffection  and  insurrections  against  the  Government. (^^) 

O  Rapin,  vol.  viii. ,  p.  85.        (^0  ^^^d- ,  P-  92.        C")  l^^d. ,  p.  55  (note). 

Q^)  Lingard  admits  that  the  Reformers  were  persecuted  under  Henry  VIII., 
and  charges  against  Edward  VI.  only  tliat  he  prepared  to  burn  the  papists, 
but  not  that  it  was  actually  done.  He  says:  "It  might  perhaps  have  been 
expected  that  the  Reformers,  from  their  sufferings  under  Henry  VIII.,  would 


506  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

If  they  remain  as  blots  upon  his  reign,  they  still  leave  it 
white  as  snow  compared  with  that  of  his  Roman  Catholic 
father,  and  only  go  to  prove  that  in  times  so  stamped  as 
those  were  with  the  intolerance  of  Rome,  the  principles  of 
Protestantism  were  necessarily  of  slow  growth;  that  they 
had  to  contend  against  such  combinations  as,  without  provi- 
dential protection,  they  could  not  have  resisted ;  and  that 
when  in  the  end  they  did  supplant  the  antagonistic  principles 
of  Romanism,  they  removed  the  most  crushing  weight  of 
tyranny  which  has  ever  rested  upon  mankind  since  the  be- 
ginning of  tlie  Christian  era. 

Edward  VI.  was  supposed  to  entertain  some  fears  that  his 
sister  Mary— daughter  of  Henry  VIII.  by  Catlierine  of  Arra- 
gon,  and  heir  to  the  throne— would,  after  his  death,  lend  her 
influence  to  the  papists,  on  account  of  her  mother's  influence 
upon  her  education.  The  Duke  of  Northumberland,  taking 
advantage  of  this,  and  probably  being  the  first  to  suggest 
it,  induced  him  to  set  aside  the  succession  of  both  Mary  and 
Elizabeth— also  daughter  of  Henry  VIII.  by  Anne  Boleyn— 
by  the  formal  assignment  of  the  crown  to  Jane  Grey,  daugh- 
ter of  the  Duke  of  Suffolk,  who,  by  the  will  of  Henry  VIII., 
was  made  next  in  succession  after  Elizabeth.  This  act  was 
manifestly  without  authority  of  law;  and  while  it  resulted 
from  the  ambitious  desire  of  the  Duke  of  Northumberland 
to  get  the  control  of  the  Government  during  the  minority 
of  Jane  Grey — who  was  his  daughter-in-law — the  motive, 
on  the  part  of  Edward,  was  to  save  the  Reformation  from 
overthrow. (")  The  result,  however,  was  not  what  either  an- 
ticipated. 

Lady  Jane  Grey  was  one  of  the  most  accomplished  wom- 
en in  England  of  her  age,  only  sixteen.  She  was  wholly 
without  ambition,  and  devoted  exclusively  to  her  studies 
and    domestic  pursuits.      At   first   she   declined  the  crown 


have  learned  to  respect  the  rights  of  conscience.  They  had  no  sooner  ob- 
tained the  ascendency,  during  the  sliort  reign  of  Edward,  than  they  displayed 
the  same  persecuting  spirit  which  they  had  formerly  condemned,  burning  the 
Anabaptist,  and  preparing  to  burn  the  Catholic  at  the  stake,  for  no  other 
crime  than  adherence  to  religious  opinion." — Lingard's  Hist.  ofEng.,  vol. 
v.,  p.  227,  sixth  London  ed. 
O  liapin,  vol.  viii.,  p.  106. 


LADY  JANE  GREY.  507 

with  befitting  modesty,  but  finally  yielded  to  the  entreaties 
of  the  Duke  of  Northumberland,  and  sufiered  herself  to  be 
proclaimed  queen.  This  was  not  considered  a  triumph  by 
the  Protestants,  who  had  no  confidence  in  the  duke,  he  being, 
as  they  supposed,  influenced  entirely  by  his  personal  ambi- 
tion,(")  and  ready  to  rejoin  the  papists  if  he  could  thereby 
promote  his  temporal  interests.  And,  besides,  he  was  un- 
popular with  the  people,  on  account  of  his  agency  in  pro- 
curing the  death  of  the  Duke  of  Somerset,  who  was  greatly 
esteemed.  And  besides,  also,  there  existed  a  general  im- 
pression that  the  assignment  of  the  crown  by  Edward  was 
illegally  made.  The  papists,  of  course,  took  advantage  of 
all  this,  and  zealously  pressed  the  claims  of  Mary,  on  ac- 
count of  her  known  devotion  to  the  pope  and  her  support 
"of  the  most  extravagant  things  in  the  Romish  religion."(") 
Mary  was  proclaimed  queen  at  Norwich,  and  was  furnished 
with  troops  by  the  counties  of  Norfolk  and  Suffolk,  to  main- 
tain her  right.  Many,  if  not  a  large  majority,  of  these  were 
Reformers  who,  before  they  espoused  her  cause,  obtained 
from  her  a  solemn  promise  that,  while  she  would  reserve  to 
herself  the  liberty  of  professing  her  own  religion,  she  would 
leave  the  religion  of  the  kingdom  as  she  found  it,  that  is,  as 
it  was  at  the  close  of  the  reign  of  Edward  VI.  f^)  Whatever 
may  have  been  her  secretly  cherished  design,  they  know 
but  little  of  the  history  and  teachings  of  the  papacy  who  do 
not  know  that  it  has  always  regarded  such  promises  as  car- 
rying with  them  no  obligation  of  obedience,  but  as  absolute- 
ly void.  Innumerable  instances  are  recorded  where  popes 
have  violated  their  most  solemn  promises  upon  the  flimsiest 
pretexts,  and  authorized  others  to  do  so,  alleging,  by  way  of 
apology,  that  the  interest  of  the  Church  demanded  it,  and 

O  Rapin,  vol.  viii.,  p.  119.  O  Ibid.,  p.  121. 

(^^)  Mr.  Froude  refei^s  to  the  same  promise  made  by  Mary,  through  Re- 
nard,  the  embassador  of  Charles  V.,  a  promise  of  which  Renard  considered  it 
necessary  to  remind  her  before  she  reached  London,  in  order  to  defeat  her 
purpose  of  having  the  funeral  ceremonies  of  Edward  VI.  conducted  accord- 
ing to  the  Roman  Catholic  forms.  In  his  letter  to  Mary,  Renard  says : 
"The  country  dreaded  any  fresh  convulsions,  and  her  majesty  should  remem- 
ber that  she  had  instructed  him  to  tell  the  council  that  she  was  suspected  un- 
justly, and  had  no  thought  of  interfering  with  the  existing  settlement  of  the 
realm.'' — Froude's  Hist,  of  Eng.,  vol.  vi.,  p.^53. 


508  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

that  110  covenants  injurious  to  that  interest  were  binding. 
We  have  seen  this  in  the  cases  of  the  kings  who  swore  to 
obey  Magna  Charta.  The  Council  of  Constance  disregarded 
the  promise  of  "  safe-conduct "  given  by  the  emperor  to  John 
Huss,  although  the  pope,  by  the  strongest  implication,  knew 
of  and  assented  to  it.  The  Third  Lateran  Council,  in  one 
of  the  canons  enacted  by  it,  declared  that  "  they  are  not  to 
be  called  oaths,  but  rather  perjuries,  v)hich  are  in  opposition 
to  the  welfare  of  the  Church  and  the  enactments  of  the  holy 
fathers.''^ i^'^)  That  Queen  Mary  yielded  her  royal  assent  to 
this  doctrine  is  beyond  all  question.  Whether  she  did  it  of 
her  own  volition,  or  in  obedience  to  the  universal  sentiments 
of  the  partisans  of  the  papacy,  is  of  no  consequence ;  it  is 
the  fact  alone  that  is  important.  Her  first  step  in  that  di- 
rection was  a  proclamation  qualifying  her  promise  by  de- 
claring that  she  should  use  no  force  to  compel  the  adoption 
of  the  Roman  religion  "till  all  was  regulated  by  the  authori- 
ty of  Parliament ;"  thus  indicating  the  purpose  of  shielding 
herself  behind  that  body.(")  This  proclamation  excited  the 
apprehensions  of  the  people  to  whom  she  had  made  the 
promise,  and  they  immediately  sent  to  her  a  petition,  pray- 
ing her  "to  remember  a  promise  which  she  had  made  them 
with  her  own  mouth."f  °)  The  manner  in  which  this  petition 
was  received  shows  not  only  the  perfidious  character  of  this 
queen,  but  how  completely  she  was  controlled  by  the  un- 
principled hierarchy  of  Rome,  and  the  low  state  of  morals 
which  prevailed  among  them.  It  was  haughtily  rejected 
as  offensive  to  royalty,  because  it  reproached  the  queen  with 
failure  of  her  word  !  The  petitioners  were  told  that  "  sub- 
jects were  not  to  control  the  action  of  their  sovereigns ;" 
and  Dolbe,  one  of  the  number  who  had  borne  the  petition, 

('^)  Letter  from  Bishop  England  (Roman  Catholic),  late  of  Charleston, 
South  Carolina,  to  Rev.  R.  Fuller,  in  their  published  controversy,  entitled 
"Roman  Chancery,"  p.  159.  This  frank  concession  of  Bishop  England 
would  seem  to  render  any  additional  evidence  of  this  statement  unnecessary. 
But  there  is  abundantly  more.     These  are  the  words  of  the  canon  law : 

"An  oath  contrary  to  the  utility  of  the  Church  is  not  to  be  observed. 

"These  are  to  be  called  perjuries  rather  than  oaths  which  are  attempted 
against  ecclesiastical  utility." — Decret.  Gregory  IX.,  vol.  ii.,  p.  358,  lib.  2, 
tit.  24,  cap.  xxvii.,  apud  Cumming,  in  his  Lectures  on  Romanism,  p.  72. 

O  Rapin,  vol.  viii.,  p.  134.  O  iitW.,  pp.  137,  138. 


'        MARY  MARRIED  TO  PHILIP.  509 

was  set  in  the  pillory. (^')  The  mask  was  then  unblushing- 
ly  thrown  aside,  and  from  that  time  the  reign  of  this  false 
queen  was  distinguished  by  some  of  the  most  bloody  and 
cruel  acts  of  persecution  of  which  English  history  gives  any 
account.  She  did  not  even  spare  the  innocent  Jane  Grey, 
whose  head  fell  beneath  the  axe  of  her  executioner,  for  what 
others  had  done  in  her  name.  A  Protestant  judge  was  fined 
a  thousand  pounds  sterling  for  ordering  the  justices  of  Kent 
to  conform  themselves  to  the  laws  of  Edward,  not  yet  re- 
pealed. (^'*)  The  prisons  were  filled  with  the  victims  of  pa- 
pal vengeance,  and  it  was  soon  made  apparent  that  they 
were  to  be  forced  to  disavow  their  Protestantism.  Steps 
were  taken,  without  delay,  to  provide  for  the  abrogation  of 
"all  laws  which  had  been  made  in  favor  of  the  Reformation, 
and  to  restore  the  ancient  religion. "(^^) 

With  a  view  to  this,  it  was  resolved  to  prohibit  a  free 
election  of  the  Commons,  in  order  to  prevent  the  return  of 
a  majority  of  Reformers;  and  thus  to  avoid  any  Parlia- 
mentary action  which  should  reflect  the  will  of  the  people. 
The  whole  power  of  the  queen  was  employed  for  this  pur- 
pose, and,  says  Rapin,  "  all  sorts  of  artifices,  frauds,  and  even 
violence,  were  put  in  practice  to  carry  the  election  in  favor 
of  the  court."(^*)  Protestant  magistrates  were  removed  and 
Romanists  put  in  their  places.  The  people  were  intimidated 
"  by  menaces,  by  actions,  by  imprisonments  on  the  most  friv- 
olous pretenses."(^^)  Protestants  were  not  allowed  in  some 
places  to  participate  in  the  election  assemblies ;  false  re- 
turns were  made  without  scruple ;  and  thus  a  majority  of 
the  Commons  favorable  to  the  queen  and  the  pope  was  ob- 
tained. It  did  not,  of  course,  take  a  Parliament  thus  elect- 
ed long  to  repeal  all  the  laws  of  Edward,  and  to  legalize  the 
persecutions  against  the  Protestants.  This  accomplished, 
the  queen,  through  the  intrigues  of  Charles  V.,  was  after- 
w^ard  married  to  Philip  of  Spain,  his  son,  in  order  to  put  the 
throne  of  England  in  a  more  complete  state  of  dependence 
upon  the  pope,  and  to  introduce  the  system  of  persecution 

(^')  Rapin,  vol.  viii.,  p.  138.  Lingard  fails  to  give  any  account  of  this 
transaction,  probably  from  prudential  motives. 

O  Ibid.,  p.  139.        C^)  Ibid.,  p.  142.       C*^  Ibid.,  p.  142.        f^)  Ibid. 


510  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

so  long  practiced  by  the  Spanish  Inquisition,  and  with  which 
the  English  people  had  not  yet  become  familiar.  The  se- 
quel proved  that  the  real  object  was,  not  to  convert  the 
Protestants,  but  to  overwhelm  and  exterminate  them.C") 
The  whole  reign  of  Mary  was,  consequently,  one  of  blood. 
In  the  last  year  before  her  death  thirty-nine  Protestants  suf- 
fered martyrdom;  and  four  of  these  about  a  week  before  she 
died  !  It  is  difficult  to  arrive  at  a  true  estimate  of  the  num- 
ber of  her  Protestant  victims— it  being  variously  stated  at 
from  two  to  eight  hundred  !(") 

That  the  object  of  Philip  in  becoming  the  husband  of 
Mary  was  to  obtain  control  of  the  English  Government,  so 
as  to  subject  the  people  to  the  complete  dominion  of  the 
papacy,  there  is  no  earthly  doubt.  His  ruling  passion  was 
ambition,  and  there  was  no  surer  method  of  gratifyino-  it 
than  to  become  master  of  England. ('')  "He  fuherited^'his 
father's  vices,  fraud  and  ambition,"  and  "  united  to  them 
more  dangerous  vices  of  his  own,  sullen  pride  and  barbarity. 
England  seemed  already  a  province  of  Spain,  groaning  un- 
der the  load  of  despotism,  and  subjected  to  all  the  hol-rors 
of  the  Inquisition.  The  people  were  everywhere  ripe  for  re- 
bellion, and  wanted  only  an  able  leader  to  have  subverted 
the  queen's  authority.  No  such  leader  appeared." ('")  And 
why  did  no  such  leader  appear?  All  candid  historians  give 
the  answer.  The  nobility  had  become  so  corrupted  that 
they  cared  for  nothing  but  to  retain  their  power,  which  they 
were  ready  to  do  by  conforming  to  the  royal  will,  no  matter 
at  what  sacrifice  of  character  or  conscience.  The  few  of 
them  who  dared  to  maintain  their  independence,  or  to  de- 
fend the  right  of  the  people  to  adopt  their  own  form  of  re- 
ligious belief,  paid  for  it  with  their  lives,  or  escaped  miracu- 
lously. The  bishops  who  had  favored  the  Reformation  were 
removed, and  Romish  bishops  put  in  their  places;  and  these 
last,  in  a  short  time— true  to  the  papal  policy — became  "  a 
power  behind  the  throne,  greater  than  the  throne  itself." 
They  were  the  fit  tools  of  the  papacy — fully  prepared  and 


O  Rapin,  vol.  viii.,  p.  212.  C^)  Ibid.,  p.  213,  and  note. 

D  "  Hist,  of  Eng.,"by  Hume,  vol.  iii.,  p.  410. 
Q^)  "  Modern  Europe,"  by  Russell,  vol.  ii.,  p.  346. 


LEAGUE  AGAINST  HERESY.  511 

ready,  not  only  to  dictate  to  Philip  and  Mary  the  bloody 
work  which  Rome  required  to  be  done,  but  to  do  it  with 
untiring  alacrity. 

A  few  years  before,  during  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.,  the 
pope,  Paul  III.,  had  entered  into  an  alliance  with  the  em- 
peror, Charles  V.,  the  father  of  Philip,  for  the  extermination, 
of  heresy  in  Germany ;  or,  "  in  other  w^ords,"  says  Mr.  Rus- 
sell, "for  oppressing  the  liberties  of  Germany,  under  pretense 
of  maintaining  the  jurisdictioji  of  the  Holy  A^ee."(")  This 
league — one  of  the  most  infamous  and  accursed  in  all  his- 
tory—  was  understood  by  both  the  contracting  parties  to 
involve  the  necessity  of  applying  force  to  put  down  the 
liitherto  unresisting  Protestants,  to  totally  destroy  them ! 
That  the  pope  so  understood  it,  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  it 
bound  him  to  furnish  the  emperor  with  twelve  thousand 
foot,  five  hundred  horse,  and  two  hundred  thousand  crowns, 
for  carrying  on  the  war.  He  also  gave  the  emperor  one 
year's  revenue  of  the  benefices  in  Spain,  with  power  to  alien- 
ate a  hundred  thousand  crowns'  worth  of  Church  lands,  to 
defray  his  expenses  !(*')  Trained  in  such  a  school  as  this, 
and  with  such  examples  for  his  imitation,  no  wonder  that 
Philip  felt  himself  charged  with  the  obligation  to  inaugurate 
a  reign  of  terror  in  England — one  transcending  all  the  out- 
rages and  enormities  of  Henry  VIII.  Under  the  pressure, 
therefore,  of  such  a  system,  far  the  larger  part  of  those  who 
were  concerned  in  the  management  of  the  Government  and 
Church  in  England  sunk  into  ignominious  subjection  to  the 
joint  power  of  the  crown  and  the  papacy ;  and  the  people, 
without  some  master  spirit  to  guide  them,  were  compelled 
to  submit  to  the  same  degradation.  Those  from  whom  they 
had  a  right  to  expect  encouragement  and  protection  either 
suffered  death  at  the  hands  of  the  public  executioner,  or 
were  engaged  in  contriving  plans  for  their  greater  humilia- 
tion. These  latter,  both  peers  and  bishops,  labored  "  how  to 
qualify  and  mold  the  sufferance  and  subjection  of  the  peo- 
ple to  the  length  of  that  foot  that  is  to  tread  on  their  necks; 
how  rapine  may  serve  itself  with  the  fair  and  honorable  pre- 

O  Russell,  vol.  ii.,  p.  296. 

(*')  Rapin,  vol.  vii.,  p.  684  ;  Fox's  "Book  of  Martyrs,"  Philadelphia  ed., 
pp.  602,  603. 


512  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

tense  of  public  good ;  how  the  puny  law  may  be  brought 
under  the  wardship  and  control  of  lust  and  will."(")  And 
their  efforts  were  successful,  according  to  the  most  sanguine 
anticipations  of  the  pope,  of  Charles  V.,  of  Philip,  and  of  all 
those  who  were  thirsting  for  Protestant  blood,  and  were 
ready  to  engage  in  exterminating  its  possessors. 

Cardinal  Pole,  who  had  been  driven  out  of  England,  and 
had  received  the  protection  of  Charles  V.,  and  who  was  thor- 
oughly devoted  to  the  papacy,  was  recalled,  and  placed  in 
such  relations  to  Queen  Mary  that  he  was  allowed  to  mold 
her  policy  in  reference  to  both  temporal  and  ecclesiastical 
affairs.  He  was  governed  by  instructions  from  Rome,  which, 
of  course,  required  him  to  reduce  England  to  the  low  condi- 
tion of  becoming  again  a  papal  province.  In  an  oration,  de- 
livered before  Philip  and  Mary  and  the  whole  Parliament, 
this  cardinal,  as  legate  of  the  pope,  spoke  of  the  great  love 
of  the  pope  for  England,  on  account  of  its  having  been  the 
first  island  converted  to  Christianity;  reminded  them  that 
this  affection  was  so  strong  in  the  mind  of  Pope  Adiian  IV. 
that  he  gave  to  King  Henry  II.  "the  right  and  seigniory  of 
the  dominion  of  Ireland,  which  pertained  to  the  See  of  Rome;" 
referred  to  his  conference  with  the  Emperor  Charles  V.,  who, 
he  said,  "hath  travailed  most  in  the  cause  of  religion;"  and 
avowed  the  purpose  of  his  mission  to  be  the  bringing  of  En- 
gland into  unity  with  Rome.  This,  said  he,  required  that 
all  should  adhere  to  the  pope  as"  vicar  of  God,"  who  derives 
his  power  not  from  man  or  the  consent  of  governments,  but 
^^from.  above  f^  and  whose  power  is  both  "  imperial  and  eccle- 
siastical !"  And  he  told  them  that,  in  order  to  bring  the  na- 
tion into  subjection  to  the  pope,  they  must  "  revoke  and  re- 
peal those  laws  and  statutes  which  be  impediments,  blocks, 
and  bars  to  the  execution  of  my  [his]  commission  !"(") 

"The  pope  never  interferes  with  temporal  affairs!"  constant- 
ly declare  his  followers.  But  here  he  stood  before  the  whole 
nation  of  England,  in  the  person  of  his  legate,  who  spoke  by 
his  command,  and  directed  such  legislation  by  Parliament  as 
should  concentrate  all  dominion  in  his  hands  !    Not  interfere 

(")  Milton's  Prose  Works,  vol.  i.,  p.  17. 
(")  Fox's  "  Book  of  Martyrs,"  pp.  309-312. 


."     .  PAPAL  DICTATION.  ;:;:r  513 

with  temporal  aifairs  ! — when  he  causes  his  legate  to  tell  the 
people  of  England  that  they  ought  to  become  his  slaves,  be- 
cause his  predecessor,  Adrian  lY.,  had  given  Ireland  to  them; 
and  made  the  Irish  people  their  slaves !  Not  interfere  with 
temporal  affairs  ! — when  he  points  out  the  very  acts  and  stat- 
utes which  are  to  be  abrogated  and  repealed  !  Not  interfere 
with  temporal  affixirs  ! — when  this  great  legate,  at  one  of  the 
most  critical  points  in  English  history,  tells  the  king,  queen, 
and  Parliament  that  the  power  of  the  pope  over  the  nation 
comes  directly  from  God,  and  that  it  is  therefore  "imperial 
and  ecclesiastical,"  and  that  it  will  be  for  the  welfare  of  their 
"  souls  and  bodies  "  that  they  should  obey  him ! 

The  legate  was  obeyed ;  the  pope  had  his  own  way ;  the 
obnoxious  statutes  were  all  repealed ;  the  people  were  sub- 
<3ued  by  threats,  persecution,  and  bloodshed ;  and  Philip  and 
Mary  did  all  they  could  to  carry  out  the  infernal  league  be- 
tween Charles  V.  land  the  pope.  No  matter  what  else  a  man 
did,  if  he  acknowledged  the  supremacy  of  the  pope,  he  was 
rewarded  by  royal  and  papal  favor.  No  matter  how  faith- 
ful a  Protestant  was  to  all  the  obligations  of  citizenship,  his 
religion  was  crime  enough  to  subject  him  to  torture  or 
death.  Philip  had  brought  with  him  from  Spain  the  passion 
for  torture  which  the  Inquisition  had  incited  there ;  and  the 
war  of  extermination  was  carried  on  with  a  thirst  for  blood 
such  as  fills  alike  the  mind  of  an  untutored  savage  and  an  in- 
tolerant pope.  John  Rogers  and  other  martyrs  were  burned 
to  ashes  for  the  crime  of  denying  the  doctrine  of  transubstan- 
tiation,  and  calling  the  Church  of  Rome  the  Church  of  Anti- 
christ. (")  When  Bishop  Hooper  was  carried  to  the  stake, 
the  process  of  burning  was  so  tardy  that  he  died  by  slow  de- 
grees of  torture,  knocking  his  breast  with  his  hands  until  one 
of  his  arms  fell  off,  and  then  with  the  other  till  it  stuck  fast 
to  the  hot  iron  !(")  Latimer  and  Ridley  had  to  be  burn- 
ed to  gratify  the  vengeance  of  that  "papistical  monster," 
Gardiner,  Bishop  of  Winchester  and  Lord  Chancellor  of  En- 
gland. (*®)  And  so  horrible  were  the  innumerable  cruelties 
practiced  upon  the  multitude  of  papal  victims,  that  the  blood 

(")  Fox's  "  Book  of  Martyrs,"  p.  330.  (")  Ibid.,  p.  350. 

(*«)  Ibid.,  p.  382.  .  . 

33 


514  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

almost  curdles  as  we  read,  at  this  distance  of  time,  the  narra- 
tives of  them.  As  they  stand  without  example  in  all  histo- 
ry— except  in  the  pagan  persecutions  of  the  early  Christians, 
and  the  Romish  persecutions  in  the  valleys  of  the  Yaudois — 
so  there  is  nothing  to  save  them  from  universal  execration. 
All  that  even  Lingard  can  say  for  them  is  that  "it  was  the 
lot  of  Mary  to  live  in  an  age  of  religious  intolerance,  when 
to  punish  the  professors  of  erroneous  doctrine  was  inculcated 
as  a  duty  no  less  by  those  who  rejected  than  by  those  who 
asserted  the  papal  authority "(*^)  —  overlooking  the  impor- 
tant facts  that  up  to  the  reign  of  Mary  there  had  been  no  per- 
secution in  England  in  behalf  of  Protestantism  ;  that  Henry 
VIII.  had  persecuted  both  papists  and  Protestants,  and  was 
never  a  Protestant  in  religious  faith  ;  and  that  no  single  drop 
of  Roman  Catholic  blood  had  been  shed  during  the  Protest- 
ant reign  of  Edward  VI. ! 

But  we  have  already  learned  that  the  persecutions  of  Prot- 
estants in  England  did  not  begin  with  either  Mary  or  Henry 
VIII.  The  examples  heretofore  enumerated  show  that  it 
was  learned  by  both  of  them,  not  alone  from  some  of  their 
Roman  Catholic  predecessors,  but  from  the  direct  teachings 
and  faith  of  the  Church  at  Rome,  which  were  supported  by 
the  False  Decretals  and  the  additions  made  to  them  from 
time  to  time,  after  the  adoption  of  the  original  forgeries. 
But  these  forgeries  merely  conferred  the  power  to  persecute 
when  necessary  for  the  Church :  the  decree  of  the  Fourth 
Lateran  Council  made  it  a  duty^  and  fixed  a  penalty  for  its 
non- performance.  This  was  manifestly  the  interpretation 
given  to  it  by  Pope  Gregory  IX.  in  his  subsequent  attempt 
to  execute  this  canon  with  all  the  terrible  vengeance  it  in- 
vited. With  a  view  to  the  extortion  of  money,  he  exacted, 
in  England,  a  tenth  part  of  all  the  movable  goods  of  the 
kingdom.  (")  Because  the  Emperor  Frederick  hindered  the 
persecution  of  the  Albigenses,  and  for  other  reasons,  he  ex- 
communicated him,  and  released  all  his  subjects  from  their 
allegiance ;"(")  which  proves  incontestably  that  the  duty  to 
persecute  and  exterminate  heretics  was  not  only  a  part  of 

C^)  Lingard,  vol.  v.,  p.  227. 

(*^)  Rapin,  vol.  iii.,  p.  303  ;  Cormenin,  vol.  i,,  p.  409. 

(")  Cormenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  471. 


OATHS  WITH  HERETICS  NOT  BINDING.  515 

the  canon  law,  but  of  the  doctrinal  faith  of  the  Church  !  To 
give  the  utmost  possible  strength  to  the  injunction,  this  same 
pope,  Gregory  IX.,  announced  (infallibly[!],  of  course)  the  im- 
pious doctrine,  that  "  Christians  should  not  regard  the  sanc- 
tity of  an  oath  toward  him  who  is  the  enemy  of  God,  and 
who  tramples  under  feet  the  decrees  of  the  Church  !"(^'') 
Claiming,  as  he  did,  in  the  most  unequivocal  manner,  the 
right  to  govern  the  world,  temporally  and  spiritually,  by  vir- 
tue of  power  derived  from  God,  it  is  not  to  be  doubted  that 
when  he  sent  the  code  of  canon  laws  into  England,  during 
the  reign  of  Henry  III.,  the  decree  of  the  Lateran  Council 
constituted  a  part  of  it ;  and  that,  interpreted  by  the  perse- 
cutions of  the  Albigenses,  it  was  designed  to  place  the  duty 
of  exterminating  heretics  upon  the  ground  that  he  who  did 
so  would  thereby  serve  God  and  win  his  way  to  heaven  !  It 
was  so  understood  by  Henry  IV.  more  than  a  hundred  years 
after  Gregory  IX.,  when  he  assured  a  convocation  of  the  pa- 
pal clergy,  in  London,  that  he  was  ready  to  join  them  in  what- 
ever means  should  be  judged  proper  to  extirpate  heresy  and 
punish  obstinate  heretics  !(") 

Now,  when  it  is  considered  that  this  Lateran  decree  be- 
came the  canon  law  in  England  three  hundred  years  before 
Luther  ;  that  it  was  enforced  against  the  Lollards  more  than 
a  hundred  years  before  that  time,  and  when  those  in  favor  of 
reform  in  the  Church  were  too  feeble  to  attempt  persecu- 
tion in  any  form  ;  and  when  it  is  remembered  that  it  became 
the  law  of  the  Church  of  Rome  by  the  solemn  action  of 
the  Twelfth  Ecumenical  Council  and  the  approval  of  the 
infallible  pope.  Innocent  III.,  and  was  expressly  recognized 
by  another  infallible  pope,  Gregory  IX.  ;(^'^)  and  that  the 
Church  of  Rome  requires  every  act  thus  performed  to  be 
held  as  unerringly  right  as  if  done  by  Christ  himself;  then 
the  whole  responsibility  for  the  introduction  of  religious  per- 
secution into  England  unquestionably  rests  with  the  popes 

f ")  Corraenin,  vol.  i.,  p.  470.  (^')  Rapin,  vol.  v.,  p.  15. 

O  By  the  highest  Roman  Catliolic  authority  it  is  said:  "In  the  Fourth 
Council  of  Lateran,  in  1215,  held  by  his  [Innocent's]  authority,  the  discipline 
of  the  Church  was  regulated  by  seventy  wholesome  decrees,  or  canons,  very 
famous  in  the  canon  law." — Butler's  Lives  of  the  Saints,  Sadlier  &  Co.'s 
ed.,  vol.  X.,  p.  56  (note). 


516  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

of  Rome  and  their  ecclesiastical  and  royal  subordinates,  all 
of  whom,  under  the  influence  of  such  teachings,  learned  to 
rejoice  when  the  muscles  of  their  victims  cracked  under  their 
torture,  and  their  bodies  were  consumed  in  the  flames !  And 
thus  we  see  that  the  persecution  of  Protestants  became  le- 
gitimated and  sanctified  in  the  eyes  of  the  popes,  princes,  and 
hierarchy  of  the  Romish  Church  ;  and  thus  did  that  Church 
give  its  high  sanction  to  the  persecutions  of  Mary.  And  it 
will  ever  stand  so  written  in  history,  whatsoever  ingenu- 
ity may  be  resorted  to,  or  falsehood  employed,  to  deny  or 
disguise  it.  The  canons  of  the  Lateran  Council  still  remain 
the  law  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church!  The  pope  who  made 
the  infamous  compact  with  Charles  V.  was  infallible  {!),  and 
therefore  could  not  err!  The  recent  decree  of  infallibility 
makes  all  that  he  did,  and  all  that  every  other  pope  has  done 
in  the  domain  of  faith  and  morals,  as  unerring  as  if  done 
by  God  himself!  But  the  nineteenth  century  has  reason  to 
thank  God  that  there  are  no  more  such  rulers  upon  the 
thrones  of  Christendom  as  Charles  and  Philip  and  Mary.  If 
there  were,  the  Encyclical  and  Syllabus  of  Pius  IX.  would 
soon  find  bloody  work  for  them  to  do  in  their  dominions. 

No  royal  marriage  ever  occurred  in  England  more  fatal 
to  the  happiness  and  prosperity  of  the  kingdom  than  that 
of  Philip  and  Mary.  That  it  was  plotted  by  the  pope  and 
Charles  V.,  and  that  they  employed  Cardinal  Pole  to  accom- 
plish it,  there  seems  no  reason  to  doubt.  It  was  in  manifest 
opposition  to  the  wishes  of  the  English  people,  who  desired 
the  marriage  of  their  queen  to  a  native  prince.  It  could 
never  have  been  accomplished,  for  there  was  no  pretense  of 
aff'ection  about  it,  had  not  Mary  been  completely  under  the 
control  of  the  papacy  and  the  papists.  She  was  a  religious 
bigot,  to  so  great  an  extent  that  she  had  no  will  of  her  own 
in  opposition  to  the  commands  of  the  pope  or  other  author- 
ities of  the  Church.  She  may  liave  been  sincere  in  the  con- 
viction that  it  was  best  for  the  people  that  they  should  be 
governed  in  obedience  to  these  authorities,  rather  than  by 
laws  of  their  own  making;  but,  however  this  was,  she  did 
govern  them  as  if  England  still  remained  a  Roman  province. 
She  permitted  the  pope,  by  his  legate,  to  dictate  what  should 
and  what  should  not  be  done.    No  law  was  enforced  ao^ainst 


THE  PERSECUTIONS  OF  ELIZABETH.  617 

the  wishes  of  the  pope,  and  every  thing  commanded  by  him 
was  blindly  and  faithfully  executed.  He  governed  England 
as  if  he  were  the  occupant  of  its  throne.  Cardinal  Pole  was 
an  Englishman,  it  is  true,  but  the  papacy  never  had  a  more 
zealous  defender  of  all  its  usurpations  and  oppressions  than 
he  was.  As  the  presiding  genius  and  guiding  spirit  of  the 
court,  he  was  the  papal  manipulator  of  all  who  had  any 
thing  to  do  with  the  affairs  of  the  Government.  He  repre- 
sented the  pope  directly  and  immediately,  kept  him  regular- 
ly advised  of  whatever  transpired,  and  obeyed  all  his  edicts 
with  a  fidelity  and  zeal  that  challenged  the  admiration  of 
Rome.  So  that  by  means  of  his  and  the  influence  of  Philip 
over  Mary,  her  reign  was  as  completely  papal,  in  all  its  lead- 
ins:  features  and  characteristics,  as  if  the  Eno^lish  crown  had 
lawfully  rested  upon  the  head  of  the  pope.  In  all  this  she 
was  unjust  to  the  nation,  and  must  ever  be  regarded  as  a 
betrayer  of  its  trust.  (") 

There  is  no  reason  for  disguising  the  fact  that  Elizabeth, 
after  the  death  of  Mary,  persecuted  the  papists.  She,  too, 
had  been  educated  and  trained  under  Romish  influences,  and 
before  the  commencement  of  her  reign  had  professed  the 
Roman  Catholic  religion.  It  is  hard  to  get  rid  of  the  influ- 
ences of  education,  especially  when  they  have  produced  in- 
tolerance ;  and  in  such  times  as  she  lived,  when  every  thing 
tended  to  extremes,  but  few  endeavored  to  do  so-;  and  these 
few  were  hidden  in  the  multitude,  who  floated  along  with 
the  current,  rather  than  assert  any  counteracting  principles. 
If  Elizabeth  had  any  special  ideas  of  the  duties  of  a  sover- 
eign, beyond  those  which  involved  the  simple  administra- 
tion of  the  Government,  she  acquired  them  as  a  sort  of  fam- 
ily inheritance  from  her  father,  and  by  immediate  personal 
intercourse  with  Mary.  If  she  had  any  conception  of  church 
discipline  or  church  organization,  or  of  a  system  of  religious 
faith,  it  w^as  likewise  acquired  in  the  same  way.  Having 
learned  by  such  means  as  these,  with  the  influence  of  the 
papal  clergy  superadded  to  them,  that  it  was  the  duty  of 
the  custodians  of  any  religious  organization  to  maintain  it 
hj  force  when  necessary;  this,  in  other  words,  being  an  es- 

(^^)  "  History  of  England,"  by  Froude,  ^'ol.  vi.,  p.  489,  etc. 


518  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

sential  part  of  the  Romish  system  of  religion,  when  she 
reached  the  throne  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  what- 
ever she  felt  it  her  duty  to  do  was  done  under  these  influ- 
ences and  according  to  these  principles.  She  had  to  deal 
with  ambitious  and  proud  ecclesiastics,  whose  hands  were 
yet  red  with  some  of  the  best  blood  of  England,  and  who 
had  inculcated  the  necessity  of  exterminating  heretics,  ac- 
cording to  the  Lateran  decree,  in  order  to  secure  the  protec- 
tion of  the  Church  in  this  life,  and  eternal  happiness  in  the 
next.  And  if,  when  she  found  them  to  be  her  own  enemies 
and  the  persecutors  of  those  of  her  subjects  with  whom  she 
sympathized,  and  saw  them  relaxing  none  of  their  efforts  to 
keep  the  crown  of  England  subject  to  the  disposal  of  the 
pope,  she  struck  back  at  them  with  their  own  weapons, 
what  is  there  very  surprising  about  it,  considering  all  the 
circumstances  and  the  times?  She  did  persecute  papists, 
cruelly  and  wrongfully,  but  she  persecuted  Protestants  also, 
like  her  father.  She  found  the  papal  system  relying  for  its 
chief  strength  and  support  upon  the  State ;  and  had  not  ad- 
vanced so  far  toward  the  results  designed  by  the  best  Prot- 
estant reformers  as  to  understand  how  a  new  system  could 
be  established  without  the  preservation  of  this  principle. 

Like  the  papal  advocates  of  the  old  system,  she,  too,  de- 
rived the  right  to  govern  directly  from  God,  and  not  from 
the  people ;  and,  in  common  with  them,  desired  the  union 
between  the  Church  and  the  State  to  be  preserved,  in  order 
that  imperialism  should  not  be  endangered.  And  hence,  led 
on  by  existing  complications,  and  by  motives  thus  engen- 
dered, she  aimed  her  blows  at  all  the  enemies  of  her  civil  as 
well  as  ecclesiastical  authority  —  at  Protestants  as  well  as 
papists.  If,  therefore,  there  are  victims  of  her  cruelty  who 
will  rise  up  in  judgment  against  her  when  they  shall  meet 
her  at  the  final  bar,  she  can  say,  as  can  also  Henry  VIIL, 
that,  unlike  the  persecutions  of  her  sister  Mary,  they  were 
not  all  of  one  Church — that  both  Roman  Catholics  and  Prot- 
estants fell  beneath  her  royal  vengeance  !  Let  the  true  dis- 
tinction be  observed.  She  persecuted  Roman  Catholics  be- 
cause they  denied  her  ecclesiastical  supremacy,  and  endeav- 
ored to  snatch  the  sceptre  of  the  kingdom  from  her  hands 
and  lay  it  at  the  feet  of  the  pope.     She  persecuted  Protest- 


ELIZABETH'S  OPPOSITION  TO  THE  PURITANS.       519^ 

ants  because  they  denied  both  her  ecclesiastical  supremacy 
and  her  divine  right,  and  inculcated  a  doctrine  which  she 
and  her  courtiers  saw,  at  a  glance,  would  ultimately  dis- 
pense with  the  agency  of  kings  in  the  management  of  pub- 
lic affairs.  And  she  entered,  with  her  strong  will  and  un- 
conquerable resolution,  upon  the  task  of  building  up  a  new 
system  and  a  new  Church,  which,  while  it  should  gather  up 
the  fundamental  principles  of  the  old  British  Christians — al- 
most buried  beneath  a  load  of  oppression  which  had  existed 
for  nearly  a  thousand  years — should,  at  the  same  time,  pre- 
serve enough  of  modern  Romanism  to  keep  the  people  in 
complete  subjection  to  the  dominion  of  kings. 

Hence  it  is  easy  to  see  that  her  persecuting  spirit  ante- 
dated all  the  Protestantism  she  had,  and  was  the  natural 
fruit  of  the  papal  intolerance  to  which  she  had,  all  her  life, 
been  accustomed.  She  was  trained,  by  both  precept  and 
example,  in  the  religious  belief  that  it  was  ordained  of  God 
that  the  Church  and  the  State  should  remain  united  ;  and, 
as  the  undoubted  Queen  of  England,  she  demanded  the  rec- 
ognition, by  all  her  subjects,  of  her  right  to  govern  both. 
She  did  not  intend  that  their  fealty  should  be  divided  be- 
tween her  and  the  Pope  of  Rome,  or  the  army  of  foreign  ec- 
clesiastics he  had  imported  into  her  dominions ;  but,  wom- 
an as  she  was,  resolved  that  the  crown  should  rest  exclu- 
sively upon  her  own  brow,  and  that  the  sceptre  of  absolu- 
tism should  be  grasped  by  her  own  hand.  When  she  began 
her  persecutions  against  the  papists,  she,  like  Henry  VIH., 
might  have  been  reconciled  to  Rome  but  for  the  question 
of  supremacy. 

But  between  her  and  the  Puritans  there  was  no  point  of 
reconciliation,  for  the  plain  reason  that  their  Protestantism 
struck  directly  at  the  foundation  of  her  royal  right  to  gov- 
ern the  conscience  and  hold  it  in  passive  obedience  to  au- 
thority. The  Protestantism  she  desired  to  build  up  was 
mere  antagonism  to  the  papacy,  mere  resistance  to  the  right 
of  the  pope  to  govern  England.  She  understood  it  to  in- 
volve, necessarily,  the  existence  of  an  English  episcopacy, 
— hierarchical,  but  not  Roman — and  the  maintenance  of  a 
Church  organization  attached  to  the  State,  but,  unlike  that 
of  Rome,  subordinate  to  its  laws.  ^Upon  these  questions 


520  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

there  was  no  common  ground  of  union  between  her  and 
the  Protestantism  then  struggling  for  existence,  which  was 
striving  to  unshackle  the  conscience,  and  to  establish,  upon 
the  basis  of  the  old  English  liberties,  the  right  of  free 
thought  and  free  speech.  She,  possibly,  might  not  have 
been  disposed  to  quarrel  with  the  Presbyterians,  Anabap- 
tists, Puritans,  or  Lutherans,  upon  many  of  the  fundamental 
principles  of  their  faith,  had  they  been  willing  to  concede 
her  ecclesiastical  as  well  as  temporal  supremacy;  but  with 
her  the  denial  of  this  was  an  unpardonable  violation  of  obe- 
dience to  the  crown,  although  she  knew  that  it  had  led  to 
the  separation  from  Rome. 

In  so  far  as  she  was  influenced  by  religious  motives  at  all, 
her  chief  object  was  to  re-establish  the  National  Church  or- 
ganization of  Edward,  either  upon  the  basis  of  the  articles 
then  adopted,  or  such  new  ones  as  should  give  it  strength 
and  efficiency  enough  to  cope  successfully  with  its  powerful 
antagonist,  the  papacy.  Her  courage,  more  than  her  piety, 
was  tried  at  every  step.  Multitudes  of  difficulties  and  em- 
barrassments crowded  into  every  hour  of  the  controversy. 
Those  immediately  around  her — with  some  honorable  ex- 
ceptions— by  whom  her  ecclesiastical  policy  was  directed, 
were,  in  the  main,  governed  by  inordinate  selfishness,  and 
were  ready  to  sacrifice  even  religion  itself  to  obtain  the 
possession  of  wealth,  power,  and  station.  In  these  respects 
they  were  no  improvement  upon  the  Romish  hierarchy,  to 
whom  the  most  of  them  had  belonged.  They  were  papists 
or  Protestants,  according  to  circumstances ;  passing  from 
one  to  the  other  with  the  ease  and  facility  of  time-serving 
politicians.  They  were  Protestants  under  Edward,  papists 
under  Mary,  and  again  Protestants  under  Elizabeth. 

Surrounded  by  such  influences,  it  is  altogether  probable 
that  Elizabeth  might  have  been  prevailed  on  by  her  clergy 
to  accept  either  a  Roman  Catholic  or  a  Protestant  creed,  ac- 
cordingly as  their  own  personal  fortunes  were  advanced;  and 
that  the  creed  adopted,  in  so  far  as  herself  and  her  courtiers 
were  concerned,  was  assented  to  from  no  higher  motive.  As 
with  Henry  VHL,so  with  her  —  the  question  of  supremacy 
merged  all  others ;  which  shows  her  persecutions,  even  more 
than  his,  to  have  grown  naturally  out  of  the  times  and  the 


RELIGION  IN  TIME  OF  ELIZABETH.  521 

affairs  of  her  kingdom,  as  they  had  been  molded  by  the  pol- 
icy of  the  papacy.  She  fell  back  behind  the  reign  of  Mary 
upon  the  issue  made  by  Henry  VIII.  with  the  papacy ;  and 
this  led  her  to  abrogate  every  thing  that  Mary  had  done  con- 
cerning religion.  And  as  Henry  VIII.  had  not  gone  so  far 
as  to  deny  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  Romish  faith — 
which  she  could  not  preserve  without  defeating  the  project 
of  a  National  Church  in  England — she  adopted  that  form  of 
religion  which  had  been  established  by  law  during  the  reign 
of  Edward  VI.  This  was  merely  Protestantism  in  an  imper- 
fect and  undeveloped  form ;  not  that  which  Luther  and  his 
adherents  had  established  in  Germany,  nor  that  which  the 
Presbyterians,  Anabaptists,  Puritans,  and  other  non-conform- 
ists maintained  in  England,  nor  that  which  now  exists  in  En- 
gland, Prussia,  and  the  United  States.  It  was  a  religious 
system  established  by  law,  like  the  papal  system  it  was  de- 
signed to  supplant,  in  opposition  to  the  liberalizing  tenden- 
cies of  true  Protestantism — of  that  which  has  been  since  de- 
veloped. It  was,  in  a  word,  an  attempt  to  constitute  a  sys- 
tem of  imperial  Protestantism,  constructed  after  the  model 
of  imperial  Momanism,  its  authors  being  seemingly  uncon- 
scious of  the  fact  that  it  contained  elements  altogether  too 
incongruous  for  reconciliation  and  harmony. 

Not  only,  therefore,  did  Elizabeth  strive  hard  to  throw  off 
all  the  influences  left  upon  the  country  by  the  reign  of  Mary, 
but  she  strove  equally  hard  to  prevent  all  those  who  desired 
a  further  and  fuller  development  of  Protestantism  from  dis- 
seminating their  doctrines  among  the  people.  Having  to 
maintain  her  own  supremacy  against  the  papists,  and  her  di- 
vine right  to  govern  against  the  more  advanced  Protestants, 
her  persecutions,  consequently,  embraced  both  these  classes. 
She  found  ready  at  hand  a  system  of  persecution  regularly 
organized  by  the  hands  of  the  papists,  after  the  Roman  and 
Spanish  methods,  which  caijie  to  her  as  a  family  inheritance 
from  her  sister  Mary.  And  she  employed  this  more  furious- 
ly, it  is  true,  against  the  papists  than  the  Protestants,  because 
they  were  her  most  powerful  and  formidable  adversaries,  and 
were  supported  by  a  Church  which  had  made  itself  almost 
omnipotent  by  ruling  the  nations  and  peoples  of  Europe  with 
imperial  grandeur  for  hundreds  of  y§ars. 


522  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

Such  a  contestant  could  not  be  successfully  resisted,  except 
by  hard  blows  ;  and  as  this  Church  had  made  itself  great  by 
employing  such  blows  against  all  its  antagonists,  Elizabeth 
did  not  hesitate  to  retaliate  upon  it  with  its  own  weapons, 
to  employ  its  own  instruments  of  torture,  to  light  the  fagots 
around  the  bodies  of  its  children  with  the  same  torch  which 
it  had  set  on  fire  when  the  body  of  William  Sawtre  was  burn- 
ed under  the  reign  of  Henry  IV.  Hence,  her  persecutions 
of  the  papists  were  precisely  such  as  were  practiced  by  the 
papists  themselves  against  the  Reformers  under  Mary  and 
some  of  her  papal  predecessors.  Hence,  also,  her  persecutions 
of  the  non- conforming  Protestants  were  less  excusable,  be- 
cause less  provoked,  and  were  therefore  cruel  and  merciless. 
By  the  former  she  broke  the  papal  power,  and  provided  there- 
by for  not  only  the  triumph,  but  the  subsequent  elevation,  of 
her  kingdom,  and  to  that  extent  was  a  public  benefactor. 
By  the  latter  she  failed  to  destroy  the  courage  and  true  no- 
bility of  character  which  belonged  to  the  English  people,  or 
to  eradicate  from  their  minds  the  principles  of  Anglo-Saxon 
liberty.  These  principles  were  providentially  preserved,  un- 
til a  system  of  fully  developed  Protestantism,  as  it  now  ex- 
ists in  the  United  States,  has  grown  out  of  them;  and  this, 
reacting  upon  the  English  mind,"  is  rapidly  leading,  in  that 
country  as  it  has  done  in  this,  to  an  abrogation  of  the  divine 
right  of  kings,  and  a  full  recognition  of  the  right  and  capac- 
ity of  the  people  to  govern  themselves. 


THE  POPES  BECOME  POLITICIANS.  523 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

Coercive  Power  of  the  Church.— Parties  and  Factions.— Quarrel  between 
Eome  and  Avignon.  —  Philip  of  France  and  Boniface  VIII.  —  Power 
claimed  by  his  Bull  Unarn  Sanctum.  —  Promise  of  Clement  V.  to  Con- 
demn Boniface  VIII. —John  XXII.  and  Nicholas  V.— Benedict  XII.— 
Corruption  of  the  Fourteenth  Century. — The  Beginning  of  the  Fifteenth 
Century. — Three  Councils  called  by  Gregory  XII.,  Benedict  XIII.,  and 
the  Cardinals. — Council  of  Pisa. — It  condemns  both  Popes,  and  deposes 
Them. — Alexander  V.  elected.  —  He  confirms  all  the  Decrees  of  the 
Council. — Three  Popes. — Balthasar  Costa  becomes  Pope,  as  John  XXIII. 
— Council  of  Constance. — Tries  and  Condemns  Gregory  XII.,  Benedict 
XIII.,  and  John  XXIII. —The  Latter  found  Guilty  of  Enormous  and 
Scandalous  Crimes.— He  is  deposed,  and  the  Doctrine  of  the  Pope's  In- 
fallibility condemned.  —  Difficulty  in  maintaining  the  Succession  of  the 
Popes. — May  be  two  Infallible  Popes  at  same  Time. — Corruption  in  the 
Council. — John  Huss  and  Jerome. — Their  Trial  and  Death. — Effect  in 
Bohemia. — Martin  V. — His  Policy. — Violation  of  his  Promise  to  Alphon- 
so. — His  Bull  against  the  King  of  Arragon. — His  Letter  to  his  Legate. — 
Becomes  sole  Pgpe. — His  Letter  to  the  King  of  Poland  for  exterminating 
the  Hussites. — His  Death. — Effects  of  his  Reign. 

The  interference  of  the  popes  with  the  domestic  civil  af- 
fairs of  the  nations  was,  undoubtedly,  superinduced  by  their 
possession  of  temporal  power  in  Rome.  The  fact  of  having 
acquired  this  power  by  means  so  totally  different  from  any 
employed  by  the  apostles,  or  by  the  Christians  of  the  first 
centuries,  naturally  tended  to  destroy  their  Christian  humil- 
ity, and  to  implant  in  their  minds  ideas  of  personal  and  of- 
ficial grandeur.  Under  such  influences  many  of  the  popes 
became  mere  politicians,  and  were  mixed  up  for  several  cent- 
uries in  controversies  with  kings  and  princes.  \  They  neglect- 
ed the  spiritual  affairs  of  the  Church,  and  seemed  to  think 
that  God  was  sufficiently  served  by  an  enlargement  of  their 
own  temporal  authority.  The  number  of  bulls,  briefs,  and 
encyclicals  issued  by  them  concerning  temporal  matters 
greatly  exceeded  those  which  involved  the  interest  of  relig- 
ion. Having  in  this  way  separated  themselves  from  the  in- 
fluence of  the  apostolic  example,  ai;d  finding  the  world,  on 


624  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

account  of  its  ignorance,  in  a  condition  to  acquiesce  in  the 
imposture,  they  did  not  hesitate  to  set  up  the  claim  of  divine 
power,  sufficiently  broad  and  comprehensive  to  embrace 
within  it  the  right  to  govern  the  kings  and  princes,  and, 
through  them,  the  people.  When  they  succeeded  in  obtain- 
ing a  practical  recognition  of  this  power,  as  pertaining  to 
the  organization  of  the  Church,  they  found  it  necessary  to 
go  one  step  farther  in  order  to  preserve  it.  This  was  the 
introduction  of  the  doctrine,  as  a  part  of  their  religious  sys- 
tem, that  this  immense  power  must  be  maintained,  if  neces- 
sary, by  force.  Hence,  the  persecution  and  extirpation  of 
heretics ;  and  also  the  doctrines  now  avowed  by  Pius  IX. 
in  his  Syllabus. 

Although,  by  these  means,  they  were  enabled  to  secure 
several  centuries  of  success,  during  which  the  world  was 
held  in  complete  subjugation  and  darkness;  yet,  in  the 
course  of  time,  the  light  began  to  break  in  upon  the  minds 
of  men,  and  to  disclose  the  fact,  in  spite  of  the  reigning  ec- 
clesiasticism,  that  this  entire  system  of  oppression  was  the 
offspring  of  usurpation  and  fraVid.  Then,  like  the  possessors 
of  all  other  ill-gotten  power,  the  leading  and  most  ambitious 
popes  became  adepts  in  all  the  arts  and  practices  of  politic- 
al intrigue  and  diplomacy,  and  m  the  pursuit  of  whatsoever 
means  were  necessary  to  maintain  their  authority,  without 
any  regard  whatever  to  the  morality  or  immorality  of  their 
acts.  And  thus  it  is  that  they  themselves  created  the  com- 
bination of  influences  out  of  which  the  Reformation  arose. 
-Had  they  been  content  to  employ  their  spiritual  power  for 
the  legitimate  uses  of  the  Church,  the  Church  would  have 
possessed  within  itself  sufficient  power  to  have  applied  the 
necessary  corrective  to  all  abuses  in  its  government.  But 
when  they  went  beyond  this,  and  claimed  the  right  to  uni- 
versal dominion,  as  derived  directly  from  God  and  as  a  part 
of  "the  patrimony  of  Peter,"  it  became  necessary  to  the 
world  that  this  claim  should  not  only  be  resisted,  but,  if 
possible,  absolutely  destroyed.  It  could  not  undergo  any 
abatement  merely;  for,  according  to  the  papal  theory,  the 
power  of  the  papacy  is  plenary,  and  can  be  nothing  less; 
and  therefore  the  contest,  in  so  far  as  the  papacy  was  con- 
cerned, became  a  death-struggle. 


THE  CHURCH  NOT  WHOLLY  CORRUPT.  525 

And  thus  we  have  seen  that,  in  point  of  fact,  the  Reforma- 
tion in  England — as  the  reigns  of  Henry  YIII.  and  Elizabeth 
sufficiently  demonstrate  —  was  not  so  much  a  protestation 
against  the  faith  and  just  authority  of  the  Roman  Church 
as  against  the  abuses  of  the  hierarchy,  and  the  gross  corrup- 
tions practiced  by  them  under  papal  sanction  and  toleration. 
There  were  many  intelligent  and  devout  Roman  Catholics 
who,  before  that  time,  had  been  sagacious  enough  to  under- 
stand, and  honest  enough  to  declare,  that  the  papacy  had  de- 
parted from  the  apostolic  teachings  and  the  practices  of  the 
first  centuries  of  Christianity.  Their  efforts — preceding  the 
great  Protestant  Reformation  —  to  save  their  ancient  and 
time-honored  Church  were  heroic,  but  unavailing.  They  are 
brilliant  lights  in  these  former  centuries,  and  attract  no  less 
our  admiration  than  our  wonder.  They  convince  us— if  any 
thing  were  necessary  to  do  so  —  that  there  was  yet  enough 
in  the  true  faith  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  even  in  the 
worst  days  of  Rome,  to  give  consolation  to  the  Christian 
mind,  and  to  excite  its  liveliest  Christian  hopes;  and  that 
much  that  is  essentially  true  and  consistent  with  the  teach- 
ings of  the  Saviour  and  his  apostles  has  been  preserved  in 
its  shifting  creeds  during  all  the  years  of  its  existence.  The 
genuine  love  and  veneration  they  felt  for  the  Church  to  which 
their  affections  clung  so  tenaciously,  stimulated  them  to  de- 
sire and  to  labor  for  its  reform,  for  the  lopping-off  the  de- 
cayed branches,  that  the  trunk  of  the  old  tree  which  had  with-, 
stood  so  many  storms  might  continue  to  bear  good  and  whole- 
some fruit.  We  can  not  withhold  from  Anselm  and  Abe- 
lard,  and  Arnold  of  Brescia — all  devout  Roman  Catholics — 
the  concession  of  sincerity  for  their  bold  appeals  to  reason 
against  the  unjust  assumptions  and  usurpation  of  authority 
by  the  popes.  They  were  not  of  the  number  of  those  com- 
monly classed  with  the  Reformers ;  but  when  they  asserted 
the  right  of  free  inquiry  and  free  thought,  they  brought  them- 
selves under  the  ban  of  the  papacy,  which  feared  an  open  ex- 
posure of  its  enormous  offenses  against  religion  and  society; 
and  the  controversy  thus  inaugurated  necessarily  incited  such 
inquiries  as  could  never  thereafter  be  suppressed  or  silenced. 

Nor  can  we  fail  to  appreciate  the  integrity  and  manliness 
of  Savonarola  when  he  stirred  up  the  people  of  Florence  to 


626  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

intense  excitement  by  his  denunciations  of  papal  infallibility 
— declaring  that  the  constitutions  issued  by  some  popes  had 
been  annulled  by  others ;  that  the  opinions  of  some  are  con- 
trary to  those  of  others ;  and  that  the  prevalent  doctrines 
of  the  papacy  led  to  "evil  doings  —  to  waste  in  eating  and 
drinking,  to  avarice,  to  concubinage,  to  the  sale  of  benefices, 
and  to  many  lies,  and  to  all  wickedness."(')  It  should  in- 
crease our  admiration  of  this  intrepid  priest  to  know  that  for 
the  avowal  of  his  honest  convictions  he  lost  his  life.  Arrest- 
ed by  violence,  tried  by  authority  of  Pope  Alexander  YI. 
with  "  true  Inquisitorial  mercilessness,"  and  put  to  death  by 
his  persecutors,  his  courage,  exhibited  in  the  midst  of  the 
flames,  imparted  itself  to  his  defenders,  and  gave  fresh  im- 
pulse to  the  work  of  reform.  (^) 

If  the  reforms  sought  for  by  these  and  other  faithful  Chris- 
tians had  been  obtained  within  the  Church,  the  Christian 
world  would  have  been  disinclined  to  rebel  against  the  s^nr- 
itual  authority  of  the  popes,  being  content  to  regard  it  as  in- 
dicating the  unity  of  the  faith.  But  the  authorities  of  the 
Church — including  popes,  prelates,  and  the  inferior  clergy — • 
had  become  so  corrupt  that  practical  reform  became  impossi- 
ble. The  long  residence  of  the  popes  at  Avignon,  in  France 
— brought  about  by  the  political  intrigues  carried  on  between 
popes  and  princes — so  demoralized  those  who  conducted  the 
affairs  of  the  Church,  both  there  and  at  Rome,  that  with  them 
religion  became  a  matter  of  secondary  importance,  if  not  of 
utter  indifference.  The  Church  was  divided  into  parties  and 
factions,  each  accusing  and  anathematizing  the  others  as  her- 
etics and  schismatics,  and  visiting  upon  them  the  curse  of  ex- 
communication. 

We  have  heretofore  seen  that  Boniface  IX.  was  pope  at 
Rome,  while  Clement  VII.  and  Benedict  XIII.  respectively 
claimed  the  pontificate  at  Avignon.  This  state  of  things 
manifestly  grew  out  of  the  quarrel  between  Philip  of  France 
and  Boniface  VIII.,  which  was  conducted  with  great  asper- 
ity on  both  sides,  and  reduced  the  election  of  a  pope  to  a 

Q)  "Predica,"  by  Savonarola;  apud  Dean  Milman,  in  his  "Essays,"  Es- 
say I.,  pp.  37,  57 ;  "Life  of  Lorenzo  de'  Medici,"  by  Roscoe,  Bohn's  ed.,  p. 
347. 

C)  Milraan's  "Essays," p.  66,  etc. 


.7,:..  ..  THE  BULL  UNAM  SANCTAM.  527 

mere  matter  of  temporal  expediency,  the  real  interests  of  the 
Church  or  of  religion  having  little  or  nothing  to  do  with  it. 
The  celebrated  bull  of  Boniface —  Unam  Scmctam — where- 
in he  asserted  that  the  pope  holds  in  his  hands  both  the 
spiritual  and  the  temporal  sword,  led  him  into  such  direct 
conflict  with  the  temporal  power,  that,  without  resistance  on 
the  part  of  the  nations,  he  would  have  reduced  them  all  to 
the  condition  of  entire  dependency  upon  the  papacy.  Hence 
we  find  Clement  V.  securing  the  pontificate,  as  the  successor 
of  Boniface  VIIL,  by  taking  an  oath  to  Philip,  "  by  the  body 
of  Jesus  Christ,"  that  he  would  "5^o^  out  the  memory  of  Pope 
Boniface  /"  and  proceeding  soon  after  his  election  to  revoke 
several  of  the  bulls  of  Boniface,  and,  especially,  to  declare 
"that  the  bull  Unam  Sanctam  should  do  no  prejudice  to 
the  king  or  kingdom  of  France,  and  that  all  things  should 
remain  in  the  same  posture  they  were  in  before  that  bull;"(') 
notwithstanding  which,  the  faithful  are  now  instructed  that 
this  same  bull  continues  to  be,  even  at  the  present  day,  a 
part  of  the  canon  law  !  Hence,  also,  we  find  that,  after  the 
death  of  Clement  V.  the  discord  prevailing  among  the  car- 
dinals occasioned  so  much  delay  in  the  election  of  his  suc- 
cessor, that  the  people  became  so  disgusted  as  to  "  set  fire 
on  the  conclave," (*)  and  disperse  the  cardinals.  The  terri- 
fied prelates  could  not  be  assembled  again  until  after  the 
death  of  Philip,  and  "the  chair  of  Peter"  remained  without 
an  occupant  for  two  years !  John  XXH.  was  then  elected 
at  Lyons  and  took  up  his  residence  at  Avignon,  and  Nicho- 
las V.  was  elected  at  Rome.  But  the  Italians,  though  back- 
ed by  the  King  of  Bavaria,  were  unable  to  protect  their 
pope,  and  he  ultimately  fell  into  the  hands  of  John  XXH., 
who  imprisoned  him  till  he  died.(^)  So  prostituted  had  the 
papacy  become  under  such  influences,  that  heresy  consisted 
in  disobedience  to  the  pope  in  the  merest  trifles,  and  punish- 
ments were  inflicted  on  account  of  them,  without  the  slight- 
est remorse.  John  XXH.  caused  four  Gray  Friars  to  be 
arrested  because  they  would  not  wear  their  gowns  in  the 
shape  prescribed  by  his  pontifical  bull  Quorundam!  They 
were  condemned  to  be  burned  as  heretics,  and  were  exe- 

O  Du  Pin,  vol.  xii.,  p.  11.  O  ^^id.,  p.  21..  Q)  Ibid.,  p.  24. 


528  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

ciited !  A  fifth  one  was  degraded  and  imprisoned  for  life 
for  the  same  offense  !(")  Benedict  XII.,  successor  of  John 
XXII.,  was  himself  a  heretic,  in  this;  that  he  maintained 
that  "  the  souls  of  those  who  die  in  mortal  sin  descend  act- 
ually right  into  hell,  where  they  suffer  the  pains  of  the 
damned ;"(')  in  express  violation  of  the  doctrine  of  purga- 
tory, which  the  General  Council  of  Florence,  at  its  twenty- 
fifth  session,  in  1438,  declared  to  have  always  been  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Church.  Such  a  condition  of  affairs  as  thus  exist- 
ed at  Avignon,  aided  by  what  occurred  during  the  subsequent 
pontificates  of  Clement  VI.,  Innocent  VI.,  Urban  V.,  Greg- 
ory XL,  and  Urban  VI.,  surrounded  the  papacy,  in  the  four- 
teenth century,  with  an  amount  of  corruption  which  had  no 
parallel  in  all  the  previous  history  of  the  world.  The  good 
men  of  the  Church,  of  whom  there  were  many,  were  made 
heart-sick  at  the  spectacle.  They  desired  reform,  but  were 
overpowered  by  the  prevailing  corruption. 

The  fifteenth  century  opened  with  demands  for  three 
councils:  one  summoned  by  Gregory  XII.;  another  by  the 
rival  pope,  Benedict  XIII. ;  and  the  third  by  the  cardinals. 
The  latter,  which  assembled  at  Pisa,  was  the  most  numer- 
ously attended,  having,  besides  a  number  of  cardinals,  em- 
bassadors from  France  and  England.  That  this  council  did 
not  believe  in  the  doctrine  of  papal  infallibility  is  perfectly 
certain ;  for,  soon  after  it  convened,  it  caused  both  popes, 
Gregory  XII.  and  Benedict  XIII.,  to  be  called  at  the  gate 
of  the  Church  ;  and  neither  of  them  appearing,  proctors  were 
appointed,  in  the  name  of  the  Universal  Church,  to  consider 
what  steps  were  necessary  to  be  taken  against  both  of  them, 
in  order  to  put  an  end  to  the  schism  and  restore  the  peace 
of  the  Church.  After  they  had  been  several  times  called, 
and  had  failed  to  appear  by  themselves  or  legates,  the  coun- 
cil unanimously  adopted  a  sentence  against  them  to  the 
effect  that  they  were  both  "contumacious  of  faith  and  of 
schism."  Here  was  an  issue  directly  and  explicitly  made 
between  the  cardinals  and  these  two  contumacious  popes, 
as  to  where  the  controlling  authority  of  the  Church  was 
lodged;  whether  in  a  general  council  representing  the  whole 

O  Du  Pin,  vol.  xii.,  p.  25.  C)  -^^«^-»  P-  29. 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  PISA.  529 

Church,  or,  as  Pius  IX.  and  his  Jesuit  defenders  now  say,  in 
the  pope  alone,  as  the  infallible  vicegerent  of  God. 

The  settlement  of  this  great  question  by  the  Council  of  Pisa 
assures  us  that  if  Pius  IX.  had  then  been  pope,  he  would  not 
have  been  considered  infallible;  or  if  the  cardinals  of  Pisa  had 
been  at  the  late  Lateran  Council  at  Rome,  the  decree  of  in- 
fallibility would  not  have  been  enacted.  It  was  decided  that 
the  cardinals  had  power  to  call  the  council,  that  it  was  law- 
fully assembled,  and  that  it  had  power  to  proceed  to  a  defini- 
tive sentence  against  both  popes.  The  trial  was,  therefore,  en- 
tered upon  with  all  necessary  solemnity.  The  popes  remain- 
ing contumacious,  although  duly  summoned  to  appear,  com- 
missioners were  appointed  to  appear  for  and  defend  them. 
After  all  the  evidence  had  been  heard  and  duly  considered, 
the  council  decided,  by  a  solemn  and  deliberate  vote,  that 
both  Gregory  XII.  and  Benedict  XIII.  had  violated  their 
oaths  by  continuing  the  schism,  and  that  all  Christians  were 
released  from  the  obligation  of  obedience  to  them  !  Bene- 
dict XIII.  was  accused  of  heresy  upon  the  authority  of  the 
universities  of  Paris,  Anglers,  Orleans,  and  Toulouse,  and 
three  hundred  doctors  of  that  of  Bononia.  And  all  the  ac- 
cusations against  him  and  Gregory  XII.  being  fully  sustain- 
ed, a  decree  was  unanimously  passed  declaring  that  they 
were  both  "  manifest  schismatics,  favorers  of  schism,  heretics, 
guilty  of  perjury  and  of  the  violation  of  their  oaths;  that 
they  give  a  scandal  to  the  whole  Church  by  their  manifest 
obstinateness  and  contumacy  ;  that  they  are  unworthy  of  all 
honor  and  dignity,  and  particularly  of  the  pontifical;  and  that 
they  are  fallen  from  it,  deprived  of  it,  and  separate  from  the 
Chui'chf  ipso  faeto.^^  The  See  of  Rome  was  declared  vacant; 
all  Christians  were  forbidden  to  obey  either  of  the  popes ; 
and  all  their  judgments  and  sentences  were  declared  null 
and  void!(') 

Now,  when  it  is  considered  that  this  council  was  composed 
of  one  hundred  and  forty  cardinals,  archbishops,  bishops,  and 
mitred  abbots,  of  twenty  -  six  doctors  of  divinity,  of  three 
hundred  doctors  of  civil  and  canon  law,  and  of  embassadors 
from  France,  England,  Jerusalem,  Sicily,  Cyprus,  Poland, 

O  Du  Pin,  vol.  xiii.,  d.  5. 
34 


530  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

Brabant,  Austria,  Bavaria,  and  from  a  number  of  lesser  pow- 
ers, including  some  of  the  princes  of  Italy,  it  must  require 
more  than  a  common  amount  of  assurance  to  pretend,  as  all 
the  Jesuit  and  ultramontane  writers  now  do,  that  infallibili- 
ty was  always  and  everywhere  the  universal  doctrine  of  the 
Church  !  For  although  it  has  suited  the  purposes  of  the  pa- 
pacy to  deny  that  the  Council  of  Pisa  was  an  ecumenical 
council,  and  to  disguise  its  proceedings  as  much  as  possible, 
yet  that  it  did  represent  the  real  sentiments  of  the  Church 
is  abundantly  attested  by  the  history  of  those  times.  There 
could  not  then  have  been  assembled  in  Europe  any  consider- 
able concourse  of  Christians  who  would  not  have  denounced 
the  infallibility  of  the  pope  as  impious  and  unchristian.  And 
of  this  we  shall  soon  see  more  satisfactory  proof  than  that 
furnished  by  the  Council  of  Pisa. 

After  Gregory  XII.  and  Benedict  XIII.  had  both  been  de- 
posed, the  Council  of  Pisa  proceeded  to  the  election  of  a  new 
pope ;  when  Alexander  V.  was  chosen,  and,  being  present,  pre- 
sided over  the  council  and  approved  all  its  sentences  and  de- 
crees. After  a  few  more  sessions  the  council  adjourned,  and 
another  general  council  was  ordered  to  meet  in  1412,  to  pro- 
vide for  reform  in  the  Church.  Pope  Alexander  V.  after- 
ward published  a  bull  in  1410,  confirming  all  that  the  Coun- 
cil of  Pisa  had  done,  against  which  bull  many  ultramontane 
maledictions  have  since  been  hurled. 

In  the  mean  time,  Gregory  XII.  assembled  his  council  in 
Aquileia,  but  it  was  attended  by  very  few  prelates.  He, 
however,  caused  it  to  decree  that  his  election  was  canonical, 
as  had  been  also  that  of  Urban  VI.,  Boniface  IX.,  and  Inno- 
cent X. ;  and  that  the  elections  of  Clement  VII.,  Benedict 
XIII.,  and  Alexander  V.  "  were  temerarious,  unlawful,  and 
sacrilegious,  and  that  they  were  schismatics  and  usurpers." 
He,  moreover,  caused  it  to  be  announced  that  he  would  re- 
sign the  pontifical  dignity,  in  order  to  restore  harmony,  if 
Benedict  XIII.  and  Alexander  V.  would  do  so ;  for  it  must 
be  remembered  that  there  were  now  three  popes,  each  claim- 
ing to  be  the  successor  of  Peter ! 

But  Alexander  V.  was  disposed  neither  to  surrender  his 
dignity  nor  to  carry  on  the  work  of  reform  which  was  ex- 
pected of  him  by  the  Council  of  Pisa.     He  was  under  the 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  CONSTANCE  CALLED.  531 

control  of  Balthasar  Costa,  who  directed  the  measures  of  his 
pontificate  with  the  sole  view  of  making  himself  his  succes- 
sor, in  which  he  succeeded.  Yet  he  was,  says  Du  Pin,  "  ac- 
knowledged for  pope  by  all  Christendom,  except  Apulia  and 
some  part  of  Italy  which  had  not  yet  abandoned  Gregory, 
and  the  kingdoms  of  Arragon,  Castile,  and  Scotland,  and  the 
states  of  Count  Armagnac,  who  acknowledged  Benedict." 
At  his  death,  which  occurred  in  1410,  Balthasar  Costa  was 
elected  his  successor,  and  took  the  name  of  John  XXIII. 
He  made  war  upon  the  King  of  Naples  with  a  view  of 
wresting  his  dominions  from  him,  and  placing  the  Duke  of 
Anjou  upon  his  throne.  The  king,  however,  finally  drove 
him  from  Rome,  where  he  was  hated  by  the  people  in  con- 
sequence of  his  having  "  drawn  great  sums  of  money  from 
the  richest  men  in  the  city."  He  took  refuge  at  the  Court 
of  the  King  of  Hungary,  where  he  went  to  consult  about  the 
meeting  of  a  council.  He  sent  his  legate  to  France  with  a 
bull,  whereby  he  assured  the  French  clergy  that  he  desired 
that  a  council  should  be  held  at  the  time  agreed  on  at  Pisa, 
to  endeavor  to  bring  about  a  union  between  the  Greek  and 
Latin  churches,  to  make  peace  between  France  and  England, 
and  "  to  reform  the  Church  both  in  its  head  and  members." 
He  finally  succeeded,  by  obtaining  the  protection  of  Sigis- 
mund  of  Hungary,  in  getting  his  views  so  generally  acqui- 
esced in  that  he  at  last  called  the  Council  of  Constance  to 
meet  in  1414 — the  time  fixed  at  Pisa.  This  council,  although 
thus  convened  by  a  pope  who  had  participated  in  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  Council  of  Pisa,  and  had,  by  acquiescing  in 
them,  committed  himself  to  the  doctrine  that  a  council  can 
try,  condemn,  and  depose  a  pope,  and,  therefore,  that  popes 
are  not  infallible,  is  regarded  by  all  the  Church  as  the  Six- 
teenth Ecumenical  Council.  Whatever  it  did,  therefore,  car- 
ries with  it  the  highest  sanction  of  the  Church,  and  has  all 
the  authority  of  law. 

At  this  council  the  means  of  restoring  peace  to  the  Church 
by  terminating  the  schism  were  much  discussed  by  the  fa- 
thers. Deputies  attended  from  Gregory  XII.  and  Benedict 
XIII.,  the  former  of  whom  proposed  his  resignation.  The 
fathers,  however,  although  they  declared  that  the  Council 
of  Pisa  was  lawfully  celebrated,  were  mostly  of  opinion  that 


532  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

the  best  way  to  put  an  end  to  the  schism  was  to  require 
that  all  three  of  the  popes — Gregory  XII.,  Benedict  XIII., 
and  John  XXIII. — should  resign  !  They  held  that,  notwith- 
standing John  XXIII.  was  a  lawful  pope,  yet  the  Universal 
Church  might  constrain  him  to  resign,  and  that  the  council 
was  the  representative  of  the  Universal  Church.  John  en- 
deavored to  defeat  this  measure  by  sowing  divisions  among 
the  members  of  the  council;  but  all  his  exertions  in  that 
direction  were  without  avail,  the  vote  being  unanimous.  In 
the  mean  time  an  Italian  bishop  accused  John  XXIII.  of 
having  committed  "  all  sorts  of  crimes,"  which  were  not  im- 
mediately made  public.  The  prelates  from  Germany,  En- 
gland, and  Poland  thought  they  ought  not  to  be  published, 
because  it  "  could  only  serve  to  disgrace  the  Holy  See,  to 
scandalize  the  Church,  and  throw  it  in  confusion."  John 
at  first  thought  he  would  defy  the  council,  and  deny  their 
power  to  depose  him,  except  for  heresy;  but  he  was  per- 
suaded by  his  friends  not  to  make  this  attempt.  Before  the 
investigation  of  the  charges  was  begun,  the  council  proposed 
to  him  his  resignation,  according  to  the  plan  they  had  pre- 
viously adopted.  Embarrassed  as  he  was,  he  had  no  other 
method  left  which  seemed  to  open  the  door  of  escape ;  and 
he  accepted  the  plan  with  apparent  pleasure,  proposing  that 
he  would  voluntarily  resign  if  Gregory  XII.  and  Benedict 
XIII.  would  also  agree  to  do  so.  This  contingent  proposi- 
tion was  not  acceptable  to  the  council,  and  he  made  anoth- 
er, equally  unsatisfactory  for  the  same  reasons.  A  third  one 
was  drawn  up  which,  through  fear  of  the  Emperor  Sigis- 
mund,  he  agreed  to  accept.  He  then  pronounced  the  decla- 
ration, and  the  next  day  repeated  it  in  the  presence  of  the 
council.  He  vowed,  and  swore  to  God,  to  the  Church,  and 
the  Holy  Council,  that  he  would  resign  so  soon  as  Gregory 
XII.  and  Benedict  XIII.  should  do  so,  or  should  be  deprived 
of  their  claims  to  the  pontificate  by  death  or  otherwise.  He 
offered  to  visit  Benedict  XIII.  himself  and  procure  his  abdi- 
cation ;  but  the  council  would  not  consent  to  this,  suspecting 
that  his  only  object  was  to  get  away  from  Constance,  and 
thus  break  up  its  sessions.  This  suspicion  was  not  without 
foundation;  for  soon  after,  notwithstanding  he  had  prom- 
ised the  emperor  that  he  would  not  leave,  he  escaped  in  dis- 


JOHN  XXIII.  VIOLATES  HIS  OATH.  533 

guise,  and  took  shelter  in  a  castle  several  leagues  distant, 
followed  by  only  five  or  six  cardinals,  four  of  whom  returned 
in  a  few  days. 

This  absence  of  the  pope  led  immediately  to  the  consider- 
ation in  the  council  of  the  question  whether  the  pope  was 
above  the  council,  and,  therefore,  infallible,  or  was  inferior 
to  it,  and  consequently  not  infallible.  There  were  only  six 
cardinals  who  maintained  the  first  of  these  propositions,  and 
who  insisted  that  the  council  was  dissolved  in  consequence 
of  the  absence  of  the  pope.  But  the  council  answered  them 
"  that  the  pope  was  not  above  the  council,  but  inferior  to 
it,"  thus  directly  and  emphatically  condemning  the  doctrine 
of  papal  infallibility  !  The  ill-fated  John  XXIIL,  finding  his 
efforts  to  break  up  the  council  ineffectual,  fled  to  another 
castle,  where  he  summoned  a  notary,  and  made  solemn  prot- 
estation against  all  that  he  had  promised  to  the  council,  and 
sworn  to  because,  as  he  said,  he  was  "  forced  to  it  by  vio- 
lence and  fear,"  so  little  did  the  popes  in  those  days  regard 
even  their  most  solemn  oaths,  though  taken  in  the  presence 
of  an  ecumenical  council. 

The  council,  in  order  to  counteract  the  influences  which 
John  XXIII.  was  trying  to  invoke  in  his  own  behalf,  then 
proceeded  to  pass  several  important  decrees.  In  one  of 
these  it  is  declared  that  the  Council  of  Constance  was  "law- 
fully assembled  in  the  name  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;"  that  it 
"represented  the  whole  Catholic  Church  militant;  had  its 
power  immediately  from  Jesus  Christ ;  and  that  every  per- 
son, of  whatsoever  state  or  dignity,  even  the  pope  himself, 
is  obliged  to  obey  it  in  what  concerns  the  faith,  the  extir- 
pation of  schism,  and  the  general  reformation  of  the  Church 
in  its  members  and  its  head."(^)  Other  decrees  were  passed, 
declaring  that  those  who  refused  to  obey  the  council,  "  even 
the  popes  themselves  not  excepted,"  should  be  punished  ;  that 

(')  The  ultramontane  writers  pretend  that  the  words,  "in  what  concerns 
the  faith,"  in  the  above  decree,  were  afterward  added  by  the  Council  of  Basil. 
They  do  this  in  order  to  break  the  force  of  this  decision  of  a  general  council 
against  papal  infallibility.  But  Du  Pin,  from  whom  the  above  facts  are  taken, 
shows  the  falsity  of  this  pretense,  and  also  that,  even  without  these  words, 
the  decree  sufficiently  affirms  the  supremacy  of  a  council  over  the  pope. — 
Du  Pin,  vol.  xiii.,  pp.  14,  15. 


534  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

if  the  pope,  when  required  by  the  council  to  enounce  the 
pontificate,  failed  or  delayed  to  do  so,  he  had  thereby  for- 
feited his  dignity,  and  no  obedience  was  due  him ;  and  that 
if  John  XXIII.  did  not  return  to  Constance,  "  they  would 
proceed  against  him  as  a  favorer  of  schism,  and  suspected  of 
heresy." 

John  XXIII.  resorted  to  many  subterfuges  to  escape  his 
impending  doom.  He  endeavored  to  apologize  for  his  se- 
cret departure  from  Constance  by  pretending  that  it  was 
necessary  on  account  of  the  condition  of  his  health ;  and 
even  went  so  far  as  to  propose  the  second  time  to  resign. 
But  the  council  had  no  confidence  in  him  or  his  promises. 
Having  already  committed  perjury  by  the  violation  of  a 
most  solemn  oath,  the  fathers  could  put  no  other  estimate 
upon  him  than  that  he  was  capable  of  any  kind  of  treach- 
ery— was  both  base  and  false-hearted.  They  therefore  pro- 
ceeded with  his  trial,  and,  after  the  most  careful  examina- 
tion of  the  evidence  and  full  deliberation,  found  him  guilty 
of  crimes  before  which  the  iniquities  of  the  basest  of  mod- 
ern criminals  dwarf  into  insignificance.  Du  Pin  thus  enu- 
merates them : 

"  Lewdness  and  disorders  in  his  youth,  the  purchasing  of 
benefices  by  simony ;  his  advancement  to  the  dignity  of  a 
cardinal  by  the  same  means ;  his  tyranny  while  he  was  leg- 
ate at  Bononia ;  his  incests  and  adulteries  while  he  was  in 
that  city;  his  poisoning  of  Alexander  V.  and  his  own  physi- 
cian;(")  his  contempt  of  the  divine  offices  after  he  was  pope; 
his  neglecting  to  recite  the  canonical  prayers,  and  to  prac- 
tice the  fasts,  abstinences,  and  ceremonies  of  the  Church;  his 
denying  justice,  and  oppressing  the  poor;  his  selling  bene- 
fices and  ecclesiastical  dignities  to  those  that  bid  most ;  his 
authorizing  an  infinite  number  of  dreadful  abuses  in  dis- 
tributing of  preferments,  and  committing  a  thousand  and 
a  thousand  cheats ;  his  selling  bulls,  indulgences,  dispensa- 
tions, and  other  spiritual  graces ;  his  wasting  the  patrimo- 
ny of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  mortgaging  that  of  other 


C°)  The  accusation  against  him  was  that  he  had  caused  his  physician  to 
poison  Pope  Alexander  V.,  in  order  that  he  might  obtain  the  papal  chair, 
and  then  poisoned  his  physician  to  prevent  detection. 


CRIMES  OF  JOHN  XXIII.  535 

Churches;  his  maladministration  of  the  spiritual  and  tem- 
poral affairs  of  the  Church ;  and  lastly  his  breaking  the  oath 
and  promise  he  had  made  to  renounce  the  pontificate,  by  re- 
tiring shamefully  from  Constance,  to  maintain  and  continue 
the  schism.'X") 

Cormenin  gives  the  decision  of  the  council  somewhat  more 
in  detail,  thus: 

"  The  General  Council  of  Constance,  after  having  invoked 
the  name  of  Christ  and  examined  the  accusations  brought 
against  John  XXIIL,  and  established  on  irrefragable  proof, 
pronounces,  decrees,  and  declares,  that  Balthasar  Costa  [the 
pope]  is  the  oppressor  of  the  poor,  the  persecutor  of  the  just, 
the  support  of  knaves,  the  idol  of  simoniacs,  the  slave  of  the 
flesh,  a  sink  of  vices,  a  man  destitute  of  every  virtue,  a  mir- 
ror of  infamy,  and  devil  incarnate ;  as  such  it  deposes  him 
from  the  pontificate,  prohibiting  all  Christians  from  obeying 
him  and  calling  him  pope.  The  council  further  reserves  to 
itself  the  punishment  of  his  crimes  in  accordance  with  the 
laws  of  secular  justice ;  and  his  pursuit  as  an  obstinate  and 
hardened,  noxious,  and  incorrigible  sinner,  whose  conduct  is 
abominable  and  morals  infamous;  as  a  simoniac,  ravisher, 
incendiary,  disturber  of  the  peace  and  unity  of  the  Church ; 
as  a  traitor,  murderer.  Sodomite,  poisoner,  committer  of  in- 
cest, and  corrupter  of  young  nuns  and  monks  !"(^'^) 

Few  men  have  reached  so  low  a  point  of  infamy  and  deg- 
radation as  that  reached  by  John  XXIIL,  who  is  recognized 
by  all  the  Church  historians  as  having  been  lawfully  elected 
pope.  On  account  of  the  enormity  of  his  crimes,  he  was  de- 
posed and  disgraced  by  the  council,  and  all  persons  were 
forbidden  to  recognize  him  thereafter  as  pope,  or  to  obey 
him.     Thus  reduced,  and  abandoned  by  the  few  friends  who 


(")  Du  Pin,  vol.  xiii.,  p.  17. 

(")  Cormenin,  vol,  ii.,  p.  108.  This  author  also  says  that  only  a  portion 
of  the  articles  were  publicly  read  ;  and  that  there  were,  besides  these,  secret 
ones  too  frightful  to  be  announced.  In  a  recent  work  it  is  said  that  these 
latter  were  "dropped  for  the  sake  of  public  decency." — The  See  of  Rome  in 
the  Middle  Ages,  by  Reichel,  part  iii.,  p.  484.  This  last-named  author 
publishes  some  of  the  charges,  and  the  sentence  of  the  council,  taken  from 
Labbe's  collection,  in  the  original  Latin. — Ibid.,  note  5,  and  p.  485,  note  1 ; 
see  also  Life  and  Times  <f  John  Huss,  by  Gillett,  vol.  i.,  pp.  515-517. 


536  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

had  previously  adhered  to  him,  he  humiliatingly  announced 
to  the  council  that  he  had  no  defense  to  oft'er,  declared  the 
council  to  be  most  holy  and  infallible,  and  approved  of  all 
its  decrees  up  to  his  deposition  at  the  twelfth  session,  thus 
entitling  that  decree  which  declared  that  a  general  council 
was  superior  to  the  pope,  and,  therefore,  that  the  pope  was 
not  infallible,  to  take  its  place  in  the  canons  and  to  become 
a  part  of  the  law  of  the  Church  ! 

The  Jesuit  defenders  of  infallibility,  with  all  their  cunning 
and  ingenuity,  have  been  sorely  puzzled  over  this  part  of  the 
history  of  the  Church.  They  have  found  it  exceedingly  dif- 
ficult to  make  the  links  in  the  chain  of  regular  apostolic  suc- 
cession interlock  each  other.  In  whatsoever  way  they  at- 
tempt it,  they  run  afoul  of  numerous  palpable  facts  which, 
when  fully  understood,  upset  all  their  theories.  In  the 
"Catholic  Family  Almanac  for  the  United  States,"  for  1870, 
there  appears  a  chronological  table  of  the  Roman  pontiffs, 
beginning  with  St.  Peter  and  ending  with  Pius  IX. (^^)  This 
is  intended  for  the  instruction  of  the  faithful.  Referring  to 
the  forty  years  of  disputed  succession  which  followed  the 
close  of  the  pontificate  of  Urban  yi.,in  1389,  it  carries  down 
the  Roman  line  of  succession  as  follows:  Boniface  IX.,  from 
1389  to  1404;  Innocent  VII.,  from  1404  to  1406;  Gregory 
XII.,  from  1406  to  1417  ;  and  then  follows  it  with  Martin  V., 
from  1417  to  1431 — thus  making  the  line  unbroken.  With- 
in these  same  years  it  puts  down  as  "  rival  popes,"  Clement 
VII.,  Benedict  XIII.,  Alexander  V.,  and  John  XXIII.  A  re- 
cent "History  of  the  Catholic  Church,"  published  also  in  the 
United  States  in  1870,  and  highly  commended  for  its  accu- 
racy, contains  also  a  chronological  table  of  the  same  kind. 
Covering  the  period  given  above,  it  makes  the  line  as  fol- 
lows: Boniface  IX.,  from  1389  to  1404;  Innocent  VII.,  from 
1404  to  1406  ;  Gregory  XII.,  from  1406  to  1409  ;  Alexander 
v.,  1409  ;  John  XXIII.,  from  1409  to  1413 ;  and  then  follows 
Martin  V.,  from  1413  to  1431 — with  the  additional  statement, 
indicated  by  the  letters  "aic?"  opposite  their  names,  that 
Gregory  XII.  abdicated  in  1409,  and  John  XXIII.  in  1413.(") 

(")  "  Catholic  Almanac,"  1870,  pp.  47,  48. 

('*)  "  History  of  the  Catholic  Church,"  by  Rev.  Theodore  Noethen,  p.  577. 


LINE  OF  SUCCESSION  CONFUSED.  53T 

-  Now,  without  stopping  to  comment  upon  other  facts  con- 
nected with  the  great  schism  of  forty  years,  during  which 
the  right  to  the  chair  of  Peter  was  continually  and  obstinate- 
ly contested,  to  the  disgrace  of  all  the  parties  and  the  injury 
of  the  cause  of  Christianity,  it  may  be  well  asked,  how  are 
the  faithful  to  decide  between  contradictory  statements  like 
these?  One  places  Alexander  V.  and  John  XXIII.  among 
the  "  rival  popes,"  and  the  other  places  them  in  the  regular 
line  of  succession  !  One  continues  the  pontificate  of  Grego- 
ry XII.  in  the  regular  line  down  to  1417,  and  makes  no  men- 
tion of  Alexander  V.  and  John  XXIII.  in  that  line ;  while 
the  other  represents  Gregory  XII.  as  having  abdicated  in 
1409,  and  continues  the  regular  line  down  to  Martin  V.,  with 
both  Alexander  V.  and  John  XXIII.  One  represents  Mar- 
tin V.  as  having  been  made  pope  in  1417,  and  the  other  in 
1413 — four  years  before. 

But  the  puzzle  will  become  more  difficult  of  solution  to 
an  intelligent  investigator  when  he  finds  out,  as  he  would 
do,  that  neither  of  these  tables  represents  the  precise  truth. 
Gregory  XII.  was  not  pope  from  1406  to  1417.  He  was 
elected  at  Rome  in  1406,  while  Benedict  XIII.  was  yet  pope 
at  Avignon,  where  he  had  held  his  pontifical  court  since  1394 
as  the  successor  of  Clement  VII.  At  the  time  of  his  election 
he  promised  the  cardinals  at  Rome  to  resign  if  Benedict 
would  do  so,  but  afterward  equivocated  to  such  an  extent 
that  all  his  cardinals  except  four  withdrew  from  him,  and 
appealed  from  his  authority  to  that  of  the  Council  of  Pisa. 
This  council  deposed  him  in  1409,  as  they  also  did  Benedict 
XIII.,  and  elected  Alexander  V.,  who  was  regarded  as  the  le- 
gal pope.  Alexander  V.  was  not,  therefore,  a  "  rival  pope ;" 
nor  was  John  XXIII.  Gregory  XII.  did  not  abdicate  in 
1409  ;  but  after  he  was  then  deposed  by  the  Council  of  Pisa, 
claimed  still  to  be  pope  as  against  Benedict  XIIL,  Alexan- 
der Y.,  and  John  XXIII.  up  till  the  fourteenth  session  of  the 
Council  of  Constance,  in  1415,  when  he  resigned  his  right 
to  the  pontificate  and  recognized  the  validity  of  the  coun- 
cil. The  council  then  approved  of  what  he  had  canonically 
done  ;(^^)  that  is,  what  he  had  done  before  he  was  deposed 

(")  Du  Pin,  vol.  xiik,  p.  18. 


538  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

by  the  Council  of  Pisa.  This  broke  his  fall  somewhat  by  rec- 
ognizing him  as  legal  pope  at  Rome  against  Benedict  XIII. 
at  Avignon,  from  1406  to  1409  —  only  three  years  out  of  the 
twelve  which  he  claimed.  And  this  was  perhaps  more  a  mat- 
ter of  policy  and  necessity  than  principle;  for  if  Gregory  XII. 
was  not  the  lawful  pope  from  1406  to  1409,  then  Benedict 
XIII.  was ;  and  he  is  properly  put  down  as  a  "  rival  pope  " 
in  one  of  the  above  tables,  and  does  not  appear  in  the  other 
at  all.  And  if  Gregory  XII.  was  a  lawful  pope  after  he  was 
deposed  by  the  Council  of  Pisa,  then  Alexander  V.,  who  was 
elected  by  that  council,  was  not.  As  the  Council  of  Con- 
stance decided  that  at  Pisa  to  have  been  regularly  and  le- 
gally held,  and  recognized  Alexander  V.  and  John  XXIIL 
both  to  be  legal  popes,  they  could  not  stultify  themselves  by 
approving  of  what  Gregory  XII.  had  done  after  he  was  de- 
posed ;  for  that  would  have  been  equivalent  to  deciding  that 
Peter  had  two  successors  at  the  same  time ! 

But,  apart  from  this  confusion  in  tracing  out  the  line  of 
regular  apostolic  succession,  this  complicated  condition  of 
aifairs  suggests  this  most  pertinent  inquiry :  where,  during 
all  this  time,  was  infallibility  deposited  ?  Was  Gregory  XII. 
infallible  ?  He  was  deposed  by  the  Council  of  Pisa,  and  the 
Council  of  Constance  recognized  the  act  as  valid.  Was 
Benedict  XIII.  infallible  ?  He  also  was  deposed  by  the  same 
authority.  Was  John  XXIIL  infallible  ?  He  was  deposed 
by  the  Council  of  Constance,  after  having  been  found  guilty 
of  the  most  outrageous  offenses.  Was  the  Council  of  Con- 
stance infallible?  That  it  claimed  infallibility  is  certainly 
true;  that  the  whole  Church  assented  to  this  claim  is  also 
true,  and  yet  to  affirm  now  th^t  it  was  would  be  heresy,  un- 
der the  decree  of  the  late  Lateran  Council.  By  it  the  faith- 
ful are  taught  that  the  pope  is  alone  the  possessor  of  infal- 
libility, and  is  the  source  from  which  all  others  receive  it. 
Therefore  they  are  driven  to  the  necessity  of  deciding  that 
Gregory  XII.,  or  Benedict  XIII.,  or  John  XXIII.  was  in- 
fallible. If  they  select  Gregory  XII.,  the  Council  of  Pisa 
stands  in  the  way  to  condemn  them.  If  they  select  Bene- 
dict XIIL,  they  meet  the  same  difficulty.  If  John  XXIIL, 
the  Council  of  Constance,  and  his  tremendous  catalogue  of 
crimes,  stare  them  in  the  face.     If  they  pass  by  all  three 


NO  MATTER  HOW  MANY  POPES.  539 

of  them,  and  lodge  infallibility  in  the  General  Council  of 
Constance,  they  are  pronounced  heretics  by  Pius  IX.  and 
his  Jesuit  and  ultramontane  prelates,  and  cut  off  from  the 
Church  by  excommunication.  What,  then,  are  the  faithful 
to  do  in  the  midst  of  all  these  complications  ?  To  a  com- 
mon-sense mind  this  question  would  be  hard  to  answer; 
but  the  defenders  of  the  papacy  are  equal  to  the  occasion. 
See  how  admirably  this  difficulty  is  disposed  of  by  St.  An- 
toninus, Archbishop  of  Florence,  who  wrote  shortly  after  the 
schism.     He  says : 

"It  is  possible  for  one  to  have  belonged  to  either  party 
in  good  faith  and  with  a  safe  conscience,  for,  although  it  is 
necessary  to  believe  that  there  is  but  one  visible  head  of 
the  Church,  if  it  should  nevertheless  happen  that  two  sov- 
ereign pontiffs  are  elected  at  the  same  time,  it  is  not  obliga- 
tory to  accept  either  as  the  legitimate  pope ;  but  only  to  ac- 
knowledge as  the  true  pope  the  one  who  has  been  canonic- 
ally  elected;  and  the  people  are  not  expected  to  determine 
which  is  the  pope,  but  can  follow  the  opinion  and  guidance 
of  their  pastors." ('') 

That  is  to  say,  "  it  is  necessary  to  believe  that  there  is 
but  one  "  pope  at  a  time,  but  "  not  obligatory."  Peter  can 
have  but  one  legitimate  successor  occupying  the  pontifical 
chair;  but  if  there  should  be  two,  it  is  no  matter,  as  it  is 
"  not  obligatory  "  upon  the  faithful  to  select  between  them. 
All  that  is  necessary  is  to  believe  that  one  or  the  other  is 
the  pope,  no  matter  which.  "  The  people  "  are  too  ignorant 
and  simple-minded  to  "  determine  "  any  thing  about  matters 
of  so  much  intricacy.  All  they  are  required  to  do  is  to  "  fol- 
low the  opinion  and  guidance  of  their  pastors !"  to  avoid  all 
thoughts  of  their  own,  all  investigation  of  the  facts,  and  pas- 
sively submit  to  whatsoever  commands  shall  be  given  them. 
Even  though,  as  was  the  case  in  the  instances  referred  to, 
one  set  of  the  faithful  should  be  taught  by  their  pastors  to 
support  one  pope,  and  another  class  another  pope,  still  no 
matter!  for  notwithstanding  each  should  denounce  the  oth- 

('«)  " History  of  the  Catholic  Church,"  by  Noethen,  p.  404.  This  author 
gives  an  account  of  the  great  schism  in  three  pages,  and  without  even  men- 
tioning the  name  of  Gregory  XII.,  Benedict  XIII.,  or  John  XXIII.  He 
quotes  the  above  with  approbation. 


640  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

er  as  a  heretic  and  guilty  of  all  sorts  of  crimes,  still,  as  in- 
fallibility must  be  somewhere,  one  or  the  other  must  have 
it !  Until  the  Council  of  Pisa  deposed  Gregory  XII.  and 
Benedict  XIII.,  the  faithful  were  permitted  to  believe  that 
either  was  infallible  as  taught  by  their  pastors.  And  the 
only  effect  of  the  election  of  Alexander  V.  by  the  council 
was  to  add  to  the  list  another  representative  of  infallibility. 
The  necessary  effect  was,  each  was  infallible  to  those  who 
followed  him,  so  that  infallibility  became  triplicated,  exist- 
ing in  three  places  at  the  same  time.  The  Church  had  not 
so  many  heads  as  Briareus,  yet  it  had  so  many  that  nobody 
then  and  nobody  now  can  tell  which  was  the  true  head ! 
And  yet  this  book,  designed  for  the  edification  of  American 
readers,  after  admitting  that  "  the  obstinacy  of  the  popes  " 
divided  the  Christian  world,  "  increased  the  schism,  and 
caused  all  the  subsequent  evils  "  to  the  Church ;  and  that  as 
"God  has  promised  his  Church  that  he  will  not  forsake  her 
in  time  of  extreme  peril,"  his  providence  selected  the  car- 
dinals as  the  agents  for  convening  a  council  in  defiance  of 
these  schismatic  popes,  and  thus  saving  the  Church  from 
overthrow — after  admitting  all  this  with  every  appearance 
of  candor,  does  not  hesitate  to  tell  us  that  each  of  these 
popes  was  infallible  to  his  followers;  that  each  was  in  the 
line  of  regular  apostolic  succession ;  that  each  wore  the  crown 
and  held  the  sword  of  St.  Peter,  provided  only  that  the  pas- 
tors who  paid  obedience  to  each  so  commanded  their  sever- 
al flocks  to  believe,  as  they  undoubtedly  did  !  And  this  is 
put  forth  with  apparent  sincerity  in  this  intelligent  and  in- 
vestigating age,  as  if  men's  minds  were  still  incased  in  an 
impenetrable  coat  of  ignorance  and  stupidity,  and  bold  and 
unblushing  dogmatism  were  alone  possessed  of  impunity. 

But  it  will  not  do  to  pass  by  the  Council  of  Constance 
without  further  comment.  When  it  is  remembered  that  it 
is  regarded  by  all  the  Church  as  ecumenical ;  that  the  pope 
found  guilty  by  it  of  the  most  infamous  crimes  belongs  to 
the  regular  line  of  succession  from  Peter ;  and  that  he  was 
the  pope  at  Rome;  some  of  the  impending  difficulties  in  the 
way  of  reform  in  the  Church  may  be  seen  and  appreciated, 
even  at  this  distance  of  time.  It  was  claimed  that  the 
"chair  of  St.  Peter"  was  at  Rome,  and  that  the  Church 


ROME  THE  SEAT  OF  CORRUPTION.  541 

there  was,  consequently,  "  the  mother  and  mistress  of  all  the 
Churches."  As  pagan  Rome  was  the  chief  imperial  city  of 
the  world,  so  the  popes,  in  imitation  of  the  emperors,  had  en- 
deavored to  make  Christian  Rome  the  sole  representative  of 
ecclesiastical  imperialism.  It  was  so  in  the  person  of  John 
XXIIL,  an  Italian,  who  was  in  possession  of  the  Vatican,  of 
all  the  holy  churches  of  Rome,  of  the  triple  papal  crown,  of 
the  fisherman's  ring,  of  all  the  relics  of  the  saints,  part  of  the 
true  cross,  of  the  thorns  in  the  cross  of  Christ,  and  of  the 
garments  worn  by  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  the  thousands  of 
other  things  which  the  ignorant  and  superstitious  are  still 
taught  to  worship.  And,  more  than  all  that,  was  he  not  in- 
fallible, so  that  he  could  not  err  in  matters  of  faith  or  mor- 
als ? — though  steeped  in  crime  and  villainy  sufficient  to  con- 
taminate the  whole  atmosphere  of  Rome.  The  festering  and 
consuming  sore  of  corruption  was,  therefore,  more  violent  at 
the  heart  of  the  Church  than  at  the  extremities ;  it  was  viler 
and  more  filthy  there  than  the  world  ever  saw  anywhere 
else,  in  any  of  the  departments  of  society,  since  Sodom  and 
Gomorrah  were  overwhelmed  by  the  wrath  of  God.  And 
such  was  the  solemn  and  deliberate  decision  of  an  ecumen- 
ical council,  pronounced  without  a  single  dissenting  voice  ! 

There  were  some  good  men  in  the  council  who  desired  to 
make  it  a  reform  council — the  ostensible  object  for  which  it 
was  convened.  But  the  ideas  which  prevailed  with  the  ma- 
jority limited  the  work  of  reform  to  the  pope  alone :  they 
desired  to  reform  him,  but  not  themselves.  If  the  cardinals 
and  higher  prelates  of  the  Church  had  been  willing  to  prac- 
tice such  virtues  as  they  demanded  of  the  pope,  and  of  the 
inferior  clergy,  results  very  different  from  those  which  did 
ensue  might  have  been  brought  about.  But,  so  far  from  this 
having  been  the  case,  a  large  number  of  them  were  as  cor- 
rupt as  the  pope,  and  habitually  practiced  the  very  vices 
they  condemned  in  him,  thus  influencing  the  lower  clergy 
to  a  still  greater  degree  of  degradation.  And  such  is  the 
undeniable  voice  of  all  impartial  history.  John  Huss,  after 
the  conviction  and  disgrace  of  John  XXIIL,  thus  spoke  from 
his  dreary  prison  at  Gottlieben : 

"The  council  has  condemned  its  chief — its  proper  head 
—  for  having  sold  indulgences,  bishoprics,  in    fact,  every 


642  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

thing;  and  yet  among  those  who  have  condemned  him  are 
many  bishops  who  are  themselves  guilty  of  the  shameful 

traffic ! O  profligate  men  !  why  did  you  not  first  pull 

out  the  beam  from  your  own  eye? They  have  declared 

the  seller  to  be  accursed,  and  have  condemned  him,  and  yet 
themselves  are  the  purchasers.  They  are  the  other  party 
in  the  compact,  and  yet  they  remain  unpunished."(") 

The  learned  Clemingis,  who  lived  in  those  days,  whose 
Christian  fidelity  was  unquestioned,  and  who,  together  with 
Gerson  and  D'Ailly,  shed  lustre  upon  the  University  of 
Paris,  spoke  of  the  members  of  the  council  as  "  carnal,  for 
the  most  part  bent  on  their  pleasures,  not  to  say  their 
lusts ;"  and  said : 

"These  carnal  sons  of  the  Church  do  not  only  have  no 
care  or  apprehension  of  spiritual  things,  but  they  even  per- 
secute those  who  walk  after  the  Spirit,  as  has  been  the  case 
from  the  days  of  just  Abel,  and  will  be  to  the  end  of  time. 
These  are  the  men  who  fly  together  to  the  Church  merely 
to  seize  upon  temporalities;  who  lead  in  the  Church  a  secu- 
lar life,  conspire,  covet,  plunder,  rejoice  in  pre-eminence,  not 
in  profiting  others ;  oppress  and  rob  their  subjects ;  glory  in 
the  honor  of  promotion ;  riot  in  pomp,  pride,  and  luxury ;  who 
count  gain  godliness,  sneer  at  such  as  wish  to  live  holily, 

chastely,  innocently,  spiritually,  calling  them  hypocrites 

Of  such  men  the  Church  is  full  this  day,  and  scarcely,  in 

whole  chapters  or  universities,  can  you  find  any  others 

Are  men  like  these  the  ones  to  exert  themselves  for  a  refor- 
mation of  the  Church — men  who  would  account  such  a  refor- 
mation the  greatest  calamity  to  themselves ?"(^®) 

The  Council  of  Constance,  controlled  by  men  of  this  sort, 
and  subject  to  such  influences  as  would  naturally  emanate 
from  them,  while  its  action,  like  that  of  the  Council  of  Pisa, 
was  a  blow  at  the  ambition  of  the  papacy  and  the  infallibil- 
ity of  the  pope,  did  as  much  as  lay  in  its  power  to  advance 
the  cause  of  ecclesiastical  absolutism,  and  to  crash  out  the 
rising  and  growing  spirit  of  inquiry  which  had  been  ex- 
cited by  Anselm,  Arnold,  Savonarola,  and  Wycliffe,  of  former 


(")  "Life  and  Times  of  John  Huss,"by  Gillett,  vol.  i.,  p.  524. 
O  Apud  Gillett,  ibid. 


HUSS  AND  JEROME.  543 

times,  and  by  John  Huss  and  Jerome  of  Prague,  who  then 
lived.  The  trial,  condemnation,  and  execution  of  Huss  and 
of  Jerome  will  remain  a  reproach  to  it  as  long  as  history  is 
read  —  will  forever  convict  it  of  injustice,  cruelty,  intoler- 
ance, and  persecution.  Whatever  amount  of  ingenuity  may 
be  expended,  and  however  the  facts  may  be  perverted  and 
distorted  by  Jesuit  art  and  cunning,  it  can  not  be  disguised 
that  the  cruelty  practiced  toward  them  was  designed  as  a 
condemnation  of  free  thought,  and  an  attempt  on  the  part  of 
the  highest  authority  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  to  per- 
petuate the  corruption  and  vices  which  then  prevailed  at  the 
expense  of  all  that  was  sanctified  in  the  former  history  of 
the  Church,  and  that  purity  of  faith  and  practice  which  it 
had  derived  from  the  teaching  and  example  of  the  apostolic 
Christians.  No  language  is  fertile  enough  in  words  of  de- 
nunciation to  express  what  all  intelligent  and  thinking  minds 
must  feel  in  relation  to  it. 

Both  Huss  and  Jerome  had  always  led  pure  and  Chris- 
tian lives.  No  charge  of  vice  or  immorality  was  ever  made 
against  either  of  them.  The  Bohemian  Christians  venerated 
and  followed  them,  not  merely  on  account  of  their  eloquence 
as  preachers,  but  because  no  breath  of  suspicion  ever  rested 
upon  their  integrity  as  men  or  upon  their  fidelity  as  Chris- 
tians. But  they  were  accused  of  favoring  the  doctrines  of 
Wycliffe,  which  pointed  to  reform;  and  that  was  an  unpar- 
donable sin,  because  they  struck  at  the  multifarious  forms 
of  vice  and  corruption  which  were  then  sanctioned  by  the 
example  of  such  popes  as  John  XXHL,  and  such  prelates  as 
constituted  the  majority  of  the  Council  of  Constance.  This 
pope  and  these  prelates  were  their  accusers,  triers,  and  exe- 
cutioners, and  it  should  surprise  no  one  to  know  with  what 
alacrity  they  hastened  to  their  conviction,  and  how  their 
hearts  leaped  with  gladness  when  the  torches  that  consumed 
their  bodies  were  lighted  by  their  emissaries. 

John  Huss  had  a  "  safe-conduct "  from  the  Emperor  Sigis- 
mund,  under  whose  influence  John  XXHI.  consented  that  the 
council  should  be  held.  He  was  promised  full  protection  both 
in  going  and  returning  to  the  council,  where  he  was  summon- 
ed to  answer  the  charge  of  heresy.  Yet  this  promise  of  pro- 
tection was  violated,  to  the  damning^  disgrace  of  all  the  par- 


544  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

ties  concerned  in  the  treacherous  and  dastardly  act.  "Wheth- 
er it  was  justified  by  the  perpetrators  of  the  wrong  upon  the 
declared  ground  that  "faith  should  not  be  kept  with  here- 
tics," is  no  matter,  since  it  is  undoubtedly  true  that  such  was 
the  doctrine  which  then  prevailed  among  the  popes  and  the 
leading  members  of  the  hierarchy,  and  which  yet  prevails^  as 
there  are  volumes  of  evidence  to  show.  Both  upon  this  and 
less  satisfactory  grounds,  innumerable  contracts,  agreements, 
and  promises  have  been  violated  and  disregarded  without 
the  slightest  compunctions  of  conscience ;  and  in  all  these 
matters  the  popes  themselves  were  far  ahead  of  all  others. 
Whether  John  XXIII.  or  Sigismund  was  most  to  blame  for 
the  betrayal  of  Huss  is  of  no  consequence  now,  since  the 
pope  is  shown  to  have  been  capable  of  that  or  any  other 
enormity,  and  the  emperor  was  ready  to  do  whatsoever  was 
necessary  to  the  protection  of  his  imperial  authority.  The 
council  was  equally  guilty  with  either  or  both  of  them,  for, 
knowing  that  the  "  safe  -  conduct "  had  been  given  by  the 
very  authority  under  which  it  convened,  if  it  had  not  been 
insensible  to  shame  it  would  have  scorned  to  maintain  a  ju- 
risdiction acquired  over  a  defenseless  adversary  by  such  base 
and  cowardly  means.  Du  Pin  says,  "The  pope  and  the  em- 
peror invited  John  Huss  to  come  thither,"  and  "  the  emperor 
granted  him  a  safe-conduct."(")  This  invitation,  if  it  did 
not  expressly  engage  the  pope  to  good  faith,  implied  it  so 
strongly  that  any  man  less  infamous  than  John  XXIII.  would 
have  protested  against  its  violation.  And  if  the  council  had 
entertained  any  respect  for  the  pope,  and  had  not  been  influ- 
enced by  the  loose  principles  of  morality  which  then  prevail- 
ed, the  blood  of  John  Huss  would  not  yet  be  clinging  to  its 
skirts.  The  next  morning  after  Huss  arrived  at  Constance, 
two  noblemen,  who  had  accompanied  him,  visited  the  pope 
to  notify  him  of  his  arrival.  They  inquired  of  him  whether 
he  could  safely  remain  without  any  risk  of  violence.  The 
pope  replied :  "  Had  he  killed  my  own  brother,  not  a  hair 
of  his  head  should  be  touched  while  he  remained  in  the 
city."(")  So  that,  if  the  pope  was  not  a  party  to  the  "Safe- 
co) Du  Pin,  vol.  xiii.,p.  120. 

O  "History  of  the  Council  of  Constance,"  by  L'Enfant;  apud  Gillett, 
vol.  i.,p.  329  (note  1). 


THE  PERSECUTION  OF  HUSS.  645 

conduct,"  he  gave  his  solemn  promise  that  it  should  be  ob- 
se^'ved.  Either  would  have  bound  an  honest  man,  but  nei- 
ther would  have  bound  John  XXIII. !  Even  his  oath,  taken 
before  the  council  with  a  solemn  appeal  to  God,  could  not 
bind  him,  infallible  as  he  was  ! 

Infamous  as  John  XXIII.  was,  he  was  not  destitute  of 
ability  or  cunning.  Having  reached  Constance  some  time 
before  the  emperor,  he  endeavored  to  shape  the  policy  of 
the  council  so  as  to  divert  attention  from  his  own  crimes. 
He  had  already  distinguished  his  pontificate  by  emptying 
the  vials  of  his  w^rath  upon  the  head  of  King  Ladislaus  of 
Naples  for  no  other  oftense  than  his  having  been  an  ally 
of  Gregory  XII.,  which,  as  we  have  just  been  taught  by 
Noethen,  quoting  from  St.  Antoninus,  was  no  offense  against 
the  law  of  the  Church.  Harmless  as  this  preference  of  La- 
dislaus is  now  pretended  to  have  been,  yet  for  it  alone  he 
was  declared  by  this  infallible  pope  to  be  "  a  heretic,  a  schis- 
matic, a  man  guilty  of  high  treason  against  the  majesty  of 
God ;"  a  crusade  was  proclaimed  against  him,  and  those  who 
should  take  part  in  it  were  promised  that  all  their  sins 
should  be  forgiven,  upon  repentance  and  confession.  (^^)  His 
success  in  bringing  the  hierarchy  to  adopt  his  views  in  ref- 
erence to  Ladislaus,  and  his  promptness  in  dealing  with  her- 
esy, led  him  to  believe  that  if  he  could  turn  the  attention 
of  the  council  to  inquiries  of  that  kind,  he  might  himself 
escape.  Accordingly,  "the  foil  he  used  was  the  heresy  of 
Huss,"  which  he  hoped  would  give  him  the  opportunity  of 
showing  how  faithfully  he  guarded  the  faith  of  the  Church ! 
To  effect  his  purpose  the  more  certainly,  he  caused  his  bull 
of  convocation  to  be  read,  wherein,  in  order  to  establish  the 
legitimacy  of  his  own  pontificate,  he  claimed  that  the  Coun- 
cil of  Constance  was  but  a  continuation  of  that  of  Pisa,  and 
then  announced,  through  one  of  his  cardinals,  that  the  coun- 
cil would  be  expected  to  direct  its  attention  especially  to 
some  prevalent  errors  of  doctrine,  and  "pre-eminently  to 
those  which  were  originated  by  Wycliffe,"  knowing  that 
Huss  had  been  accused  of  maintaining  them.  He  succeed- 
ed in  part  of  his  plan,  that  is,  in   inciting  the  persecution 

(^')  Gillett,  vol  i.,  p.  tSl. 
35 


546  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

of  Huss,  but  not  in  escaping  the  doom  which  he  himself  so 
richly  merited.  (^'^) 

Huss,  when  summoned  before  the  council,  was  told  that 
he  had  been  charged  with  disseminating  "errors  of  the 
gravest  kind "  in  Bohemia,  but  they  were  not  specifically 
stated.  He  was  only  notified  that  they  were  "  manifestly 
opposed  to  the  Catholic  Church."  To  this  indefinite  accu- 
sation he  replied,  like  an  honest  man,  "  If  any  one  can  con- 
vince me  of  any  error,  I  will  unhesitatingly  abjure  it."(") 
Specific  articles  of  accusation  were,  however,  afterward  drawn 
up  against  him,  by  which  it  was  charged,  1st,  that  he  reject- 
ed the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  ;  2d,  with  maintaining 
that  a  priest  in  mortal  sin  can  not  administer  the  sacra- 
ments; 3d,  that  by  the  Church  is  not  to  be  understood  the 
pope,  clergy,  or  members  of  the  hierarchy ;  4th,  that  the  en- 
dowment of  the  Church  by  secular  princes  is  unwise ;  5th, 
that  all  priests  are  equal,  and  it  is  false  that  bishops  alone 
have  the  right  to  consecrate  and  ordain ;  6th,  that  the  en- 
tire Church  has  no  power  of  the  keys,  when  the  whole  cler- 
gy is  in  gross  sin ;  and,  7th,  that  he  had  contemned  his  ex- 
communication by  saying  mass  every  day  on  his  journey  to 
Constance.  (")  He  was  immediately  arrested  and  held  in 
custody  as  a  prisoner,  to  answer  this  indictment.  His  place 
of  imprisonment  was  a  nauseous  and  unhealthy  apartment, 
"  through  which  every  sort  of  impurity  was  discharged  into 
the  lake" — of  Constance.  When  the  emperor,  who  had  not 
yet  arrived,  heard  of  this,  he  sent  forward  embassadors  to 
demand  the  release  of  Huss,  but  he  was  not  discharged.  On 
account  of  his  sickness,  occasioned  by  the  foul  air  he  was 
compelled  to  breathe  in  his  filthy  and  poisonous  dungeon, 
he  was  at  last  removed  to  more  healthy  apartments.  This 
is  said  to  have  been  done  by  the  pope,  "  lest  Huss  should 
die  in  prison,  and  the  cause  of  orthodoxy  lose  the  incense  of 
a  burning  heretic."(")  His  failing  health  admonished  him 
of  the  necessity  of  having  an  advocate  to  defend  him,  and 
he  asked  that  one  might  be  appointed.  But  this  w^as  re- 
fused ;  and  he  was  told  "  that,  according  to  the  canon  law, 

C)  Gillett,  vol.  i.,  p.  342.  C')  ^bid.,  p.  345.  Q*)  Ibid.,  p.  347. 

O  Ibid.,  p.  357. 


nUSS  DENIED  AN  ADVOCATE.  547 

no  one  could  be  allowed  to  take  the  part  or  plead  the  cause 
of  a  man  suspected  of  heresy ;"  an  act  of  tyranny  worthy 
only  of  the  most  heartless  despotism.  Weak  and  feeble  as 
he  was,  however,  his  defense  of  himself  was  a  masterly  ex- 
hibition of  his  great  powers  of  mind,  and  of  his  unflinching 
courage.  But  it  was  of  no  avail.  All  sorts  of  evidence  were 
admitted  against  him ;  every  thing  he  said  was  tortured  into 
heresy ;  and,  after  a  mock  trial  of  a  few  days,  he  was  pro- 
nounced by  this  great  ecumenical  council  to  be  guilty — 
not  of  any  crime,  but  of  daring  to  think  !  He  had  ventured 
to  say  that  immoral  priests  could  not  administer  the  sacra- 
ments, and  this  was  considered  by  a  majority  of  the  council 
as  an  impeachment  of  themselves.  He  had  endeavored  to 
lower  the  pride  and  diminish  the  authority  of  the  pope  and , 
hierarchy,  and  had  thus  brought  himself  under  the  ban  of/ 
these  corrupt  officials.  Of  course  he  was  convicted — that 
had  been  predetermined — for  no  victim  could  be  furnished 
so  likely  as  Huss  ta«aaiisfy  the  world  of  the  orthodoxy  of 
the  councH  and  the  pope  !     *— -'•— ^*-"- ■-*-, 

There  was  but  a  single  mode  of  escape  for  this  intrepid 
champion  of  free  thought ;  that  was,  to  admit  the  errors 
charged  against  him,  and  to  retract  them.  Unconscious  of 
error,  he  could  not  in  his  conscience  admit  it;  and  there- 
fore he  had  nothing  to  retract.  He  appealed  to  reason  and 
the  enlightened  judgment  of  the  council;  but  that  body  re- 
fused him  the  right  to  address  himself  to  any  motive  high- 
er than  that  which  grew  out  of  its  own  selfish  and  partisan 
passions,  and  demanded  unconditional  submission.  It  would 
allow  no  debate,  no  inquiry ;  every  one  of  its  assumptions 
had  to  be  accepted  as  infallibly  true.  Huss,  then,  when  he 
Remanded  to  be  heard  in  defense  of  his  own  opinions,  was 
the  representative  of  the  free  spirit  of  the  present  age  —  the 
champion  of  tliat  intellectual  and  moral  freedom  upon  w£jch 
the  central  column  of  Protestantism  is  now  resJting.  How 
much  fairer  and  nobler  a  place  does  he  occupy  in  history 
than  the  infamous  pope  whose  victim  he  became,  or  any  of 
those  members  of  the  council  who  aided  in  producing  his 
conviction !  Their  names  are  scarcely  known  except  to  the 
readers  of  history,  while  hi&i«^4ispfidiy..allXiast  every  school- 


548  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

Jerome  met  the  same  fate.  He  and  Huss  were  burned  at 
the  stake — martyrs  in  the  cause  of  truth  and  freedom.  Nei- 
ther of  them  exhibited  the  slightest  fear  of  death.  No  quiv- 
ering muscle  displayed  the  cowardice  of  conscious  guilt. 
They  were  heroes  in  the  highest  sense,  and  left  behind  them 
influences  which  were  not  long  in  producing  fruits,  not  ex- 
pected  by  their  persecutors,  but  which  laid  the  foundation 

fnr^snp-)^  pf  |,hp.  flp.a.mTpl;in^^p^  ]lkTnfy~'"  '" 

/  To  pretend  that  the  iToman  Catholic  Church  is  not  guilty 
of  the  death  of  Huss  and  Jerome,  as  the  papists  do,  is  worse 
than  idle.  The  Council  of  Constance  was  its  highest  author- 
ity. It  represented  the  entire  Church,  and  in  this  capacity 
tried,  convicted,  and  turned  them  over  to  the  secular  author- 
ities for  execution.  After  their  conviction,  and  before  they 
were  removed  from  the  council  chamber,  paper  crowns  were 
placed  upon  their  heads.  These  were  covered  with  "  pict- 
ured fiends  "  with  flames  around  them,  to  signify  that  they 
were  devoted  to  death  by  burning.  (^^)  When  this  was  placed 
upon  the  head  of  Huss,  his  persecutors  exclaimed, "  We  de- 
vote thy  soul  to  the  devils  in  hell,"  which  was  more  the  lan- 
guage of  a  fiend  than  of  a  Christian.  The  council  knew  what 
the  result  of  the  conviction  would  be.  The  Church  at  that 
time  shaped  the  domestic  policy  of  the  nations,  in  so  far  as  it 
concerned  the  Church  or  dealt  with  heresy.  Wherever  there 
was  an  emperor  or  king  who  refused  to  enact  laws  against 
heretics  consistently  with  the  decree  of  persecution  enacted 
by  the  Fourth  Lateran  Council,  he  was  cursed  and  excom- 
municated, and  his  subjects  were  released  from  their  alle- 
giance. Hence  the  law^nndt^i*  ^l^icT^  Hnss  and  Jerome  were 
executed  was  ihe  resulFof  that  obedience  wliich  "th"e^nati6ns~ 
then  paid" to  the  Church,  wliich  tlie  Church  required  ofThemj 
and  for  the  failure  or  refusal  to  pay  which  it  visited'ltsse- 
verest  punlslnnents  upon  tliem.  The  blood,  therefore',  of 
tiTeS^mnTrdGred  Christians  is  still  crying  out  against  the  hi- 
erarchy of  the  Church,  and  will  not  be  washed  away  until 
they  learn  to  exchange  their  persecuting  intolerance  for  the 
mild  and  forbearing  teachings  of  the  Gospel. 

Soon  after  the  ven^ance  of  the  Council  of  Constance  had 


0")  Gillett,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  65,  255. 


THE  MARTYRDOM  OF  HUSS  AND  JEROME.  549 

spent  itself  in  the  flames  which  consumed  the  bodies  of  Huss 
and  Jerome,  avengers  begun  to  spring  up  on  every  side  to 
proclaim  anew  the  truths  uttered  by  them,  and  more  espe- 
cially to  assert  the  right  to  challenge  the  oppressions  and 
usurpations  of  imperialism.  _Tlip  r^^^t^"^  ber^^''^  ^nfl  bl^ 
tween  reason  and  authority  —  between  th^j^apacy,  wielding^ 
flTPrtTft  povvfir  of  the  iJni^rcn^  in  maintaining  its  demand  for 
ind  uninquiring  submission,  and  in  denymg^to  TtS" 

fott^wers  free  access  to the  Scriptures,  and  the  right  of  iree 

In^tlrJ^int^o  the  truths  of  religion,  philosophy,  and  science. 
IfTorder  ignobly  to  maintain  its  authority,  and  thus  to  per- 
petuate the  existing  corruptions,  every  artifice  was  employ- 
ed. Bulls  of  excommunication -and  ecclesiastical  interdicts 
— employed  far  more  frequently  in  reference  to  secular  than 
spiritual  affairs — were  the  common  resort  of  the  popes,  who, 
forgetting  that  God  still  reigned  over  the  world,  impiously 
claimed  that  they  could  open  or  close  the  gates  of  heaven 
and  hell  at  their  pleasure,  and  could  withdraw  the  thunder 
and  the  lightning  from  the  sky  to  scathe  and  blast  the  oppo- 
nents of  their  ignominious  and  debasing  vices.  What  won- 
der is  there,  then,  that  these  avengers  arose  icithin  the  Church, 
when  they  remembered  how  much  it  had  done  to  Christian- 
ize and  civilize  the  world,  and  how  much  of  apostolic  puri- 
ty there  was  yet  retained  in  its  cherished  faith  ?  They  saw 
clearly  that  the  struggle  involved  the  life  of  Christianity  and 
the  dearest  hopes  of  the  Christian  world  ;  and  the  inspiriting 
thought  that  they  were  the  champions  of  such  a  cause  gave 
them  a  courage  and  heroism  which  the  world  will  never 
cease  to  admire.  The  oceans  of  blood  which  papal  imperi- 
alism caused  to  be  shed  throughout  the  beautiful  plains  and 
valleys  of  Europe  have  not  been  sufficient  to  wash  from  the 
pages  of  history  the  bright  record  of  their  virtues  and  their 
courage.  The  flames  could  consume  their  bodies,  but  other 
flames  were  enkindled  which  could  not  be  extinguished;  and 
from  out  of  these  flashed  forth  the  light  of  truth. 

The  Bohemians  were  very  much  attached  to  Huss  and  Je- 
rome, and  their  cruel  murder  produced  intense  excitement 
among  them.  The  King  of  Bohemia  observing,  one  day, 
a  nobleman,  named  John  Zisca,  deeply  wrapped  in  thought, 
inquired  of  him  what  he  was  thinking  about ;  when  he  re- 


550  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

/  plied :  "  I  was  thinking  on  the  affront  offered  to  our  king- 
r  dom  by  the  death  of  John  Huss."     The  king  replied :  "  It  is 
/     out  of  your  power  or  mine  to  revenge  it,  but  if  you  know 
/       which  way  to  do  it,  exert  yourself."(")     And  he  did  exert 
/         himself  in  such  a  way  as  to  bring  down  terrible  revenge 
/  upon  the  heads  of  the  persecutors.     With  the  assistance  of 

/  Nicholas  de  Hussinetz,  he  raised  an  army  of  forty  thousand 

V  men,  and  a  war  immediately  ensued  between  the  emperor,  as 

\      the  representative  of  papal  imperialism,  and  the  Bohemians, 
I      which  lasted  for  thirteen  years.     Inhuman  cruelties  were 
/      practiced  on  both  sides,  and  the  termination  of  the  struggle 
I       was  marked  by  a  concession  to  the  Bohemians  which  they 
\      considered  of  the  utmost  importance  in  maintaining  their 
1     faith  and  mode  of  religious  worship.     This  was  the  allow- 
Y I  ance  to  their  laity  of  the  use  of  the  cup  in  the  sacrament, 
/t  which  the  Romanists  had  denied  to  them,  because  it  gave 
J  jtoo  much  importance  to  the  common  people.     The  introduc- 
I  'tion  of  this  concession  in  the  treaty  of  peace  was,  to  some 
extent,  the  recognition  of  the  fact  that  the  laity  were  not  a 
mere  canaille  ;  and  it  resulted,  ultimately,  in  bringing  about 
a  union  between  the  Waldenses  and  the  Hussites,  and  in 
giving  new  impetus  to  the  cause  of  the  Moravian  Chris- 
tians.    And  although  the  Hussites  were  banished  from  Mo- 
ravia some  time  afterward,  they  had  two  hundred  congrega- 
tions in  Bohemia  and  Moravia  at  the  beginning  of  the  six- 
<teenth  century. 
Martin  V.  was  elected  pope  by  the  Council  of  Constance, 
and  having  finally  succeeded,  after  much  difficulty,  in  get- 
ting rid  of  his  rivals,  was  also  anxious  to  get  rid  of  the  coun- 
cil— for,  like  other  popes,  he  desired  to  govern  alone.     He 
was  afraid  to  break  it  up,  and  endeavored  to  keep  in  its  fa- 
vor by  continuing  to  execute  the  Hussites,  making  for  that 
purpose  "a  magnificent  auto-da-fe P     Unable  to  accomplish 
his  wish  in  this  way,  he  announced  his  intention  of  leaving 
Constance,  but  was  opposed  in  this  by  the  emperor,  who  de- 
sired to  have  the  relations  between  them  satisfactorily  ar- 
ranged.    Martin,  dreading  the  possibility  of  being  cited  to 
a  new  council,  in  case  of  disagreement  with  the  emperor. 


(") 


"Church  History," by  Fry,  London,  1824,  p.  261. 


MARTIN  V.  551 

thought  to  put  an  end  to  the  proceedings  by  resort  to  a 
pontifical  bull,  wherein  he  maintained  that  "  a  pope  was  the 
absolute  judge  of  his  own  actions,  in  all  circumstances, 
and  that  he  could  annul  the  pro?mses  he  had  previously 
madeP^i^^)     And  he  adopted  this  principle  in  practice. 

He  endeavored  to  establish  the  papal  rule  over  the  cities 
of  Genoa,  Venice,  Florence,  and  Naples,  which  had  freed 
themselves  from  the  tyranny  of  the  popes.  He  found  the 
husband  of  Joanna,  Queen  of  Naples,  driven  out  in  conse- 
quence of  his  cruelties ;  and,  taking  advantage  of  the  exist- 
ing disorders,  he  offered  the  crown  to  Louis  of  Anjou,  on 
condition  of  his  assisting  him  to  re-acquire  the  papal  pos- 
sessions, thus  claiming  the  divine  right  to  dispose  of  crowns 
and  kingdoms.  Joanna,  to  defeat  this,  obtained  assistance 
from  Alphonso,  King  of  Arragon ;  and  as  the  pope's  army 
was  upon  the  eve  of  being  defeated,  the  wily  pope  had  re- 
course to  the  cunning  expedient  of  making  another  agree- 
ment with  Alphonso,  to  the  effect  that  if  he  would  dethrone 
Joanna,  he  would  obtain  the  renunciation  of  Louis  of  Anjou, 
and  give  the  crown  to  him.  Alphonso  consented,  and  seized 
the  government  of  Naples,  requiring  an  oath  of  allegiance 
from  the  inhabitants.  Joanna  fled,  and  Alphonso  became 
master  of  Naples.  He  called  on  the  pope  for  the  fulfillment 
of  his  promise,  by  deposing  Joanna  and  conferring  the  title 
of  king  upon  him.  But  as  the  pope,  when  he  made  the 
promise,  had  not  the  slightest  idea  of  complying  with  it,  he 
replied,  very  deliberately,  that  "Ae  had  never  intended  to  ful- 
fill the  promises  he  had  made  himP^i^^)  that  the  crown  of 
right  belonged  to  Louis,  who  had  bought  the  investiture 
of  it  from  Popes  Alexander  V.  and  John  XXHL  ;  and  that, 
besides,  he  would  not  aid  a  prince  who  had  given  shelter  to 
a  rival  pope,  as  Alphonso  had  done  to  Benedict  XIH.  His 
solemn  promise  did  not  weigh  with  him  the  weight  of  a 
feather.  Alphonso  determined  to  avenge  the  insult,  and 
Martin  V.,  seeing  that  he  was  likely  to  do  it  effectually,  sent 
to  him  a  legate  to  sue  for  peace.  But  Alphonso,  having 
learned  his  perfidy  and  hypocrisy  sufiiciently,  declined  any 
intercourse  with  the  legate,  and  published  an  edict  forbid- 

O  Cormenin,  vol.  ii.,  p.  111.  ^  O  Ibid.,  p.  113. 


552  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

ding  the  reception  of  any  of  the  pope's  bulls  in  Spain.  This 
was  purely  a  temporal  matter,  yet  the  pope  issued  a  bull 
against  the  King  of  Arragon  declaring  him  an  enemy  of  re- 
ligion, a  supporter  of  schism,  and  as  such  deprived  him  of 
his  dignity  and  kingdom ;  not,  it  will  be  observed,  for  any 
sin  against  God  and  the  Church,  but  for  daring  to  rebuke 
him,  an  infallible  pope,  for  his  perfidy  and  want  of  truth. 

The  pope  now  gathered  an  army  of  Italian,  French,  Ger- 
man, and  English  soldiers,  and  sent  them  into  Bohemia,  un- 
der the  command  of  one  of  his  cardinals,  to  exterminate  all 
who  embraced  the  doctrines  of  Huss.  The  Bohemians  were 
not  easily  overcome,  and  drove  the  papal  troops  out  of  their 
country.  But  the  pope,  although  thus  defeated,  was  grati- 
fied that  he  had  succeeded  in  stirring  up  a  civil  war  in  Ger- 
many, from  which  he  hoped  great  gains  to  the  papal  cause. 
Therefore  he  wrote  to  his  defeated  legate : 

"You  will  immediately  recruit  new  troops  to  recom- 
mence hostilities,  and  to  wash  out,  in  the  blood  of  the  Huss- 
ites, the  opprobrium  with  which  your  name  is  covered.  Let 
no  consideration  arrest  you ;  spare  neither  money  nor  men. 
Believe  that  we  are  acting  for  religion,  and  that  God  has 
no  more  agreeable  holocaust  than  the  blood  of  his  enemies! 
Strike  with  the  sword,  and  when  your  arm  can  not  reach 
the  guilty,  employ  poison,  burn  all  the  towns  of  Bohemia, 
that  fire  may  purify  this  accursed  land ;  transform  the  coun- 
try into  arid  steppes,  and  let  the  dead  bodies  of  the  heretics 
hang  from  the  trees  in  greater  number  than  the  leaves  of 
the  forest."C°) 

Benedict  XIII.  having  died,  and  Clement  VIII.  having  re- 
signed his  claims  to  the  pontificate,  Martin  V.  became  the 
sole  possessor  of  the  tiara,  in  1429,  thus  ending  the  great 
Western  schism,  which  had  for  more  than  fifty  years  ena- 
bled the  chief  actors  to  exhibit  themselves  as  "  ambitious, 
avaricious,  vindictive,  debauched,  and  cruel;  solely  occupied 
with  duping  men,  and  changing  the  holy  water  into  a  stream 
of  gold."  This  gave  to  Martin  V.  more  leisure  to  prosecute 
his  war  of  extermination  of  the  Hussites ;  and  we  have  still 
further  insight  into  the  character  of  this  war,  and  the  policy 

C)  Cormenin,  vol,  ii.,  pp.  115,  IIG. 


PERSECUTION  IN  BOHEMIA.  553 

of  this  infallible  pope,  by  the  following  letter,  addressed  by 
him  to  the  King  of  Poland,  endeavoring  to  procure  his  aid 
in  bringing  back  the  Bohemians  to  the  true  faith : 

"  Know  that  the  interests  of  the  Holy  See,  and  those  of 
your  crown,  make  it  a  duty  to  exterminate  the  Hussites.  Re- 
member that  these  impious  persons  dare  proclaim  principles 
of  equality;  they  maintain  that  all  Christians  are  brethren 
and  that  God  has  not  given  to  privileged  men  the  righ 
of  ruling  the  nations ;  they  hold  that  Christ  came  on  eartW 
to  abolish  slavery ;  they  call  the  people  to  liberty,  that  is, 
to  the  annihilation  of  kings  and  priests.  While  there  is 
still  time,  then,  turn  your  forces  against  Bohemia;  hurn^ 
massacre^  make  deserts  every ichere^  for  nothing  could  he  more 
agreeable  to  God^  or  more  useful  to  the  cause  of  Idngs^  than 
the  extermiyiation  of  the  Hussites^ {^^)  \ 

Martin  V.  did  not  live  long   enough,  after  issuing  this 
bloody  edict,  to  wdtness  its  desolating  effect  upon  the  Bohe- 
mians.    The  gallant  Hussites,  invigorated  by  the  conscious- 
ness that  they  were  defending  an  inalienable  right  which 
God  had  given  them,  rallied,  like  true  soldiers,  to  the  defense      ^ 
of  their  principles  and  their  homes,  and  cut  the  papal  army 
to  pieces,  driving  it  back  in  dismay  and  disgrace.     At  their 
hands  liberty  won  another  triumph  over  imperialism,  and 
the   cause   of   free   conscience   was,   under    the   protecting 
providence  of  God,  still  preserved.     The  shock  which  the    j 
pope  sustained  when  this  sad  news  reached  the  Vatican  was    j 
too  great  for  him.     Finding  himself  thus  defied,  and  with  an    / 
army  routed  and  dispirited,  he  was  seized  with  a  fit  of  apo-  / 
plexy,  and  died,  disappointed  in  his  hopes,  and  despised  by  / 
all  except  those  who  were  united  with  him  in  the  effort  to  I 
keep  the  people  in  degradation  and  perpetuate  the  reign  of  [ 
papal  and  imperial  absolutism.     But  he  lived  long  enough  I 
to  show  the  world  that  the  canon  of  the  Fourth  Lateran  \ 
Council,  which  commanded  the  extermination  of  heresy  by    \ 
force,  was  still  the  law  of  the  Church,  and  that  from  it  the       j 
papacy  derived  the  leading  and  governing  principle  of  its      / 
action.     With  a  view  to  the  enforcement  of  this  law,  he  pro-    / 
claimed  his  infallibility,  that  he   might   the   more   readily  / 

(")  Cormenin,  vol.  ii.,  ppc  116, 117. 


554  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

grasp  sufficient  temporal  power  to  unsheath  the  swords  of 
princes,  and  send  forth  their  armies,  with  torch  and  fagot, 
to  murder,  to  destroy,  and  to  desolate  some  of  the  fairest 
portions  of  Europe.  What  impious  blasphemy  it  is  to  say 
that  God  was  on  the  side  of  the  fiendish  and  infernal  work 
prescribed  by  this  pope  for  the  defenders  of  papal  sover- 
eignty ! 

But  the  healing  of  the  schism  to  which  the  pontificate  of 
Martin  V.  led  did  not  put  an  end  to  the  corruptions  of  popes, 
prelates,  or  priests.  God  seems  to  have  permitted  these 
to  continue  during  the  remainder  of  the  fifteenth  century, 
and  into  the  sixteenth,  in  order  that  the  Christian  world 
might  realize  how  far  the  papacy  had  departed  from  the 
teachings  and  practices  of  the  apostolic  age,  and  be  pre- 
pared for  the  ushering -in  of  the  Protestant  Reformation. 
Notwithstanding  that  torrents  of  blood  were  shed,  and  the 
fires  of  the  terrible  Inquisition  were  kindled,  and  gibbets  and 
scaffolds  were  erected  wherever  the  papacy  had  power,  God 
did  not  design  that  the  world  should  be  longer  ruled  by  de- 
praved popes  and  priests ;  and,  therefore,  by  the  consumma- 
tion of  that  great  event,  he  marked  out  for  it  new  roads  to 
happiness  and  prosperity,  and  to  Christianity  fresh  triumphs 
in  more  peaceful  fields.  And  thousands  who  had  before  felt 
the  crushing  weight  of  papal  oppression,  and  groaned  under 
the  burden,  enlisted  under  the  banner  of  religious  freedom, 
which  has  been  borne  onward  and  upward,  through  terrible 
trials,  until  at  last  it  floats  in  front  of  the  Vatican  at  Rome, 
despite  the  curses  and  anathemas  of  Pope  Pius  IX.,  who, 
that  it  might  again  be  trailed  in  the  dust  before  him,  invites 
another  crusade,  revives  the  canon  of  the  Lateran  Council, 
and  gnashes  his  teeth  in  desperate  rage,  because  there  is  no 
king  upon  any  throne  to  do  his  bidding,  and  because  man- 
kind will  not  tamely  submit  to  the  pressure  of  his  heel  upon 
their  necks.  By  the  proclamation  of  his  sovereignty,  his  in- 
fallibility, and  his  omnipotence,  he  leaves  no  room  to  doubt 
that  he  desires  to  turn  the  Christian  world  back  from  its 
progressive  advancement  into  the  terrible  condition  from 
which  the  Reformation  raised  it,  and  by  the  substitution  of 
terror,  hatred,  and  intolerance,  for  love,  charity,  and  tolera- 
tion, to  win  again  universal  supremacy  for  the  papacy.     To 


CONSEQUENCE  OF  PAPAL  SUPEEMACY.      555 

do  this,  he  would  enslave  all  peoples  who  will  not  obey  him, 
destroy  all  governments  wherein  the  people  have  power,  ab- 
rogate every  law  in  conflict  with  papal  enactments,  restore 
the  universal  reign  of  kings,  and  establish  a  Holy  Empire, 
with  ecclesiastical  supremacy,  upon  the  ruins  of  all  popular 
government. 


556  THE  PAPACY-  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

Adrian  IV.,  and  the  Grant  of  Ireland  to  England. — Ireland  brought  within 
Jurisdiction  of  Kome  in  the  Twelfth  Century.— Enlargement  of  the  Papal 
Power. — Secular  Power  administered  by  Commission  from  the  Pope. — 
Gregory  VII.  and  Innocent  III.— The  Fourth  Lateran  Council  estabUsh- 
es  the  Faith  that  Institutions  prejudicial  to  the  Church  should  not  be  ob- 
served.—Papal  Doctrine  in  Regard  to  Oaths.— Urban  VI.,  Eugenius  IV., 
and  Innocent  III.  —  Nature  of  the  Oath  exacted  by  Innocent  III.  from 
King  John. — Subjects  all  Governments  to  the  Pope. — EiFect  in  the  United 
States. — Constitutional  Oath  of  Allegiance. — Its  Obligation. — The  Papal 
Theory  on  that  Subject.— Oaths  opposed  to  the  Welfare  of  the  Church  not 
binding.— Unlawful  Oaths  not  binding.— What  are  Lawful,  and  what  are 
Unlawful.— The  Papal  Principle  applied  to  the  Government  of  the  United 
States.  —  The  Papal  Argument  by  Balmes.  —  Resistance  to  Civil  Power 
usurped. — When  it  is  usurped. — When  Legal,  and  when  Illegal. — Govern- 
ments dejure  and  de  facto. — Obedience  to  the  Last  not  Obligatory. — May 
be  recognized  from  Prudential  Motives. — Government  of  the  United  States 
is  de  facto. — The  Monarchies  of  Europe,  when  Obedient  to  the  Pope,  are 
de  jure. — The  Doctrine  of  Consummated  Facts  denied.— Illegitimate  Au- 
thority can  not  become  Legitimate  by  Time. —Rendering  to  Casar  the 
Things  that  are  Caesar's  only  requires  Obedience  to  Legitimate  Govern- 
ments. —  Legitimate  Governments  are  only  such  as  are  based  on  the  Law 
of  God. — That  of  the  United  States  is  not  Legitimate. 

The  dignity  and  power  acquired  by  the  Roman  Church 
by  means  of  the  exercise  of  its  spiritual  jurisdiction,  how- 
ever great,  was  not  sufficient  to  answer  the  ends  and  grati- 
fy the  ambition  of  the  mediaeval  popes.  The  frequent  ef- 
forts of  the  Italian  people  to  establish  republican  institutions, 
which  were  often  attended  with  the  expulsion  of  the  popes 
from  Rome,  were  not  intended  as  a  denial  of  that  jurisdic- 
tion, in  the  proper  sense,  but  as  the  means  of  limiting  it  to 
its  own  ecclesiastical  sphere.  But  the  popes  were  not  satis- 
fied with  this.  With  them  republicanism  was  synonymous 
with  heresy,  which  they  resolved  to  uproot  with  all  the 
power  necessary  to  that  end.  They  denied,  totally,  the  right 
of  any  people  to  make  the  laws  or  mold  the  institutions  un- 
der which  they  -were  to  live.     Therefore,  when  Arnold  of 


PAPAL  JURISDICTION  OVER  IRELAND.  557 

Brescia  preached  at  Rome  against  their  temporal  power,  and 
in  favor  of  a  republican  form  of  government,  the  people  were 
so  incensed  against  Adrian  IV.  that  they  drove  him  out  of 
the  city.  And  when  he  was  afterward  restored  to  his  see 
by  the  army  of  Frederick  Barbarossa — who  delivered  Ar- 
nold to  him,  in  consideration  of  his  coronation  as  emperor — 
he  consigned  his  patriotic  victim  to  death  at  the  stake,  and 
held  the  Roman  people  in  subjugation  by  force. (^)  Thus, 
also,  we  find  this  same  pope  authorizing  the  like  subjuga- 
tion of  Ireland  by  the  English  king,  and  consigning  its  peace- 
ful and  Christian  people  to  the  merciless  cruelties  of  Henry 
II.,  upon  the  ground  that  it  was  a  portion  of  "  the  patrimo- 
ny of  St.  Peter  and  the  Holy  Roman  Church ;"  and  this,  too, 
notwithstanding  the  Irish  Church  had  grown  up  independent- 
ly of  Rome  ;  had  derived  its  faith  from  the  canons  of  St.  Pat- 
rick, and  not  from  those  of  the  Roman  Church  ;  had  appoint- 
ed and  consecrated  its  own  bishops  and  priests;  had  held 
its  own  synods ;  and  had  received  the  pallium  from  the  pope 
only  three  years  before  the  commencement  of  Adrian's  pon- 
tificate. Q     The  idea  that  all  this  enormous  and  comprehen- 

Q)  "  History  of  Germany,"  by  Menzel,  Bohn's  ed.,  vol.  i.,  p.  459  ;  "His- 
tory of  Germany,"  by  Lewis,  p.  189 ;  "Mediaeval  Kings,"  by  Busk,  vol.  i., 
p.  358  ;   "  Temporal  Power  of  the  Papacy,"  by  Legge,  p.  49. 

(^)  The  pallium  is  the  universal  "symbol  of  ecclesiastical  union  and  de- 
pendence," the  "insignia  of  investiture,"  by  which  alone  the  pope  imparts 
"a  portion  of  his  own  primatial  authority." — Universal  Church  History,  by 
Alzog,  p.  693,  and  note  (3)  by  American  translators.  Malachy,  the  Irish 
Archbishop  of  Armagh,  solicited  the  pallium,  for  the  first  time,  from  Inno- 
cent II. ,  but  he  refused  it.  It  was  afterward  granted  by  one  of  his  succes- 
sors, and  was  carried  to  Ireland,  in  1151,  by  his  legate — so  that  the  union  of 
the  Irish  Church  with  that  of  Rome  was  nearly  a  hundred  years  after  the 
conquest  of  England  by  the  Normans,  and  nearly  seven  hundred  years  after 
the  death  of  St.  Patrick.  The  transfer  of  Ireland  to  England  was  the  first 
jurisdictional  act  of  the  pope,  after  the  ecclesiastical  investiture  which  fol- 
lowed the  granting  of  the  pallium ;  and  it  was  done  under  such  circumstan- 
ces as  to  authorize  the  conclusion  that  it  arose  from  a  combination  between 
Henry  II,,  the  pope,  and  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  his  primate  in  En- 
gland, that  the  pallium  should  be  granted  for  the  express  purpose  of  bringing 
the  country  under  the  papal  jurisdiction,  in  order  to  give — according  to  the 
prevailing  belief — the  divine  sanction  to  the  subjugation  of  the  Irish  people, 
and  the  exaction  from  them  of  tithes  for  the  support  of  the  popes  and  the 
maintenance  of  their  royalty. — History  of  Ireland,  by  M.  F.  Cusack,  Nun 
of  Kenmare,  pp.  231,  232  ;   Norman  Conquest^,  by  Thierry,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  143, 


558  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

sive  power  was  derived  from  the  pretended  donation  of  Con- 
stantine  was  fast  becoming  obsolete,  for  the  reason  that  if 
that  were  its  only  foundation,  it  would  be  circumscribed  with- 
in too  narrow  limits.  To  enlarge  rather  than  curtail  it  was 
what  the  popes  of  that  age  specially  sought  for.  Hence 
they  maintained  the  more  steadily  the  idea  of  their  own  per- 
sonal infallibilityj  in  order  by  means  of  it  to  ingraft  upon  the 
faith  of  the  Church  the  doctrine  that  their  temporal  power 
was  derived  from  Christ  through  Peter ;  and  therefore,  hav- 
ing that  origin,  was  not  confined  to  the  Papal  States,  but  ex- 
tended to  the  entire  world,  and  subjected  all  nations  and  peo- 
ples to  their  dominion,  within  the  domain  of  morals  no  less 
than  that  of  faith.  This  domain  was  considered  as  almost 
without  limitation,  or,  at  all  events,  as  broad  enough  to  in- 
clude, not  only  the  entire  conduct  of  individuals  in  their  pub- 
lic and  private  intercourse,  but  all  such  secular  action  of  na- 
tions as  involved  questions  of  public  or  private  morality. 
Thus,  monarchs  were  to  hold  their  crowns  and  exercise  their 
royalty  at  the  will  of  the  reigning  pope ;  nations  were  to  ex- 
ecute only  such  laws  as  he  considered  in  conformity  to  the 
divine  law,  and  to  abrogate  those  which  were  not  so;  and 
he  was  to  intervene  between  them  and  their  citizens  at  his 
own  discretion,  and  release  them  from  their  allegiance,  and 
turn  over  their  territorial  possessions  to  the  dominion  of 
those  who  would  obey  his  commands  and  execute  his  will. 
"  Secular  power  was  only  to  be  tolerated,  as  secular  princes 
avowedly  exercised  it,  by  commission  from  the  pope."(') 

This  doctrine  had  continued  to  grow  and  strengthen  from 
the  time  when  Gregory  VII.,  the  great  Hildebrand,  had 
excommunicated  and  deposed  Henry  IV.,  Emperor  of  Ger- 
many, and  released  all  his  subjects  from  their  allegiance  to 
him.  Each  of  the  succeeding  pontiffs  of  the  eleventh  and 
twelfth  centuries  had  avowed  it  whenever  they  could  safe- 
ly venture  to  do  so.     But  it  remained  for  Innocent  III.,  one 

189 ;  History  of  England,  by  Hume,  Harper  &  Brother's  ed.,  vol.  i.,  p.  329  ; 
History  of  England,  by  Rapin,  vol.  iii.,  pp.  50-54;  Latin  Christianity,  by 
Milman,  vol.  iv.,  p.  264  ;  Eccl.  Hist.,  by  Jones,  London  ed.,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  70, 
71,  citing  M.  Paris's  history,  p.  67 ;  History  of  England,  by  Lingard,  vol.  li. , 
pp.  89,  90. 

C)  Legge,  p.  50. 


CLAIM  OF  UNIVERSAL  SOVEREIGNTY.  559 

of  the  leading  and  ruling  spirits  of  the  age,  to  make  it  a  part 
of  religious  faith,  by  ingrafting  it,  by  virtue  of  his  infalli- 
bility, upon  the  dogmas  of  the  Church.  His  towering  and 
unsatisfied  ambition  stimulated  him  to  use  it  as  the  means 
of  making  himself  "the  general  arbiter  of  differences  and 
conservator  of  the  peace  throughout  Christendom."(*)  His 
proud  spirit  chafed  at  the  thought  that  any  earthly  po- 
tentate should  equal  him  either  in  greatness  or  authority. 
Therefore  he  required  that  "  all  disputes  between  princes  " 
should  be  referred  to  him ;  and  if  either  party  should  refuse 
"  to  obey  the  sentence  of  Rome,  he  was  to  be  excommuni- 
cated and  deposed,"  and  a  like  penalty  was  to  be  visited 
upon  those  who  refused  to  attack  whatsoever  "  refractory 
delinquent"  he  should  point  out.(^)  Forfeitures,  interdicts, 
excommunications,  and  every  other  form  of  ecclesiastical 
censure  and  punishment,  were  of  almost  daily  occurrence. 
Even  such  monarchs  as  Philip  Augustus  and  Henry  IV. 
quailed  before  him,  and  Peter  II.  of  Arragon  and  John  of 
England  —  as  we  have  seen  —  ignominiously  consented  to 
convert  their  kingdoms  into  spiritual  fiefs,  and  to  hold  them 
in  subordination  to  him,  upon  the  condition  of  paying  an 
annual  tribute.  By  virtue  of  the  claim  of  infallibility,  the 
power  of  arbitrary  papal  dispensation  was  carried  to  its  ex- 
tremest  limit,  even  to  the  assertion  and  exercise  of  the  right 
to  infringe  the  canons  of  the  Church.  "  Innocent  III.  laid 
down  as  a  maxim,  that  out  of  the  plenitude  of  his  power  he 
might  lawfully  dispense  with  the  law;"f)  and  caused  the 
Fourth  General  Lateran  Council  to  insert  among  its  canons 
one  which  provided  "  that  the  constitutions  of  princes  which 
are  prejudicial  to  the  rights  of  the  Church  shall  not  be  ob- 
served ;"f ) — thus  establishing  this  as  a  fixed  principle  of  the 
canon  law,  and,  consequently,  as  a  part  of  the  religious  faith 

(*)  "Middle  Ages,"  by  Hallam,  Harper  &  Brothers' ed.,  ch.  vii.,  p.  287. 

C)  Ihid.  («)  Ibid.,  p.  293. 

(^)  "Eccl.  Hist.,"  by  Du  Pin,  vol.  xi.,  p.  100.  This  is  the  same  council 
referred  to  in  a  former  chapter,  by  one  of  the  canons  of  which  it  was  pro- 
vided that  heretics  should  be  extirpated,  and  that  whenever,  upon  proper  no- 
tice, any  prince  should  fail  or  refuse  to  do  so,  his  dominions  should  be  for- 
feited to  the  pope,  who  should  turn  them  over  to  some  one  who  would  per- 
form that  duty. — See  Du  Pin,  vol.  xi.,  p.  96.    * 


560  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

of  the  Church.  It  did  not  take  long  to  carry  this  doctrine 
of  dispensation  to  the  extent  of  applying  it  to  the  observance 
of  oaths,  and  to  find  in  the  Decretals  this  provision:  "That 
an  oath  disadvantageous  to  the  Church  is  not  binding ;  and 
that  one  extorted  by  force  was  of  slight  obligation,  and 
might  be  annulled  by  ecclesiastical  authority."('^) 

Instances  are  numerous  to  show  the  effect  of  these  teach- 
ings upon  the  lives  and  conduct  of  the  popes,  and  Mr.  Hal- 
lara  gives  two  memorable  ones  by  way  of  illustration — that 
of  Urban  VI.,  who  promulgated  a  solemn  and  general  dec- 
laration against  keeping  faith  with  heretics;  and  that  of 
Eugenius  IV.,  who,  acting  upon  this  principle,  annulled  com- 
pacts with  the  Hussites  by  releasing  those  who  had  sworn 
to  them,  and  made  the  King  of  Hungary  break  his  treaty 
with  Amurath  IL,  absolving  him  from  his  promise  "on  the 
express  ground  that  a  treaty  disadvantageous  to  the  Church 
ought  not  to  be  kept."f ) 

These  instances  are  dwarfed  before  the  more  flagrant  ex- 
ercise of  the  same  power  by  Innocent  HI.  in  the  advance- 
ment of  his  schemes  of  temporal  policy.  At  the  very  begin- 
ning of  his  pontificate  he  required  the  Roman  prefect  to  take 


C)  "  Juramentum  contra  utilitatem  ecclesiam  prcestitum  non  tenet."  Hal- 
lam,  p.  293  and  note  ;  "Church  History,"  p.  201,  by  Fry,  London.  It  has 
undoubtedly  become  the  settled  law  of  the  Roman  Church  that  the  pope 
may  dispense  with  any  promissory  oath  by  withdrawing  the  promise  or  pro- 
hibiting its  performance.  The  doctrine  is  thus  laid  down  by  an  author  great- 
ly distinguished  in  the  Church  for  his  learning.  In  answering  the  objection 
that  the  obligation  of  an  oath  is  of  natural  and  divine  right,  and  therefore  that 
it  can  not  cease  to  be  binding  through  dispensation,  commutation,  or  veto, 
he  says :  The  consequence  is  denied,  because  through  dispensation,  etc.,  it  is 
brought  about,  that  that  which  was  included  under  the  oath,  by  withdrawing, 
prohibiting,  etc.,  is  not  included  under  the  oath,  and  so  there  is  nothing  done 
contrary  to  the  oath.  ("Neg.  cons,  quia  per  dispensationera,  etc.,  efficitur, 
'ut  id,  quod  sub  juramento  cadebat,  sub  juramento  non  cadat  subtrahendo, 
prohibendo,  etc.,  et  ita  non  fit  aliquid  contra  juramentum.' — S.  Th.  2,  2,  q. 
89,  a.  9,  ad.  1.") — Theologia  Moralis  et  Docjinatica,  by  Peter  Dens,  Dublin 
ed.,  1832,  vol.  iv..  No.  177,  p.  21G.  The  same  author  goes  one  step  ftirther, 
and  says  :  "And  then  in  every  oath  there  is  this  condition  :  '  the  right  of  the 
superior  is  reserved.' "  ("  Deinde  omni  juramento  inest  hsec  conditio :  '  salvo 
jure  superioris.'  ") — Ibid. 

O  Hallam,  p.  293  (note),  citing  Sismondi,  t.  ix.,  p.  196,  and  Rymer,  t. 
vii.,  p.  352. 


DISPENSING  OATHS.  561 

tlie  oath  of  allegiance  to  himself,  when  it  was  his  duty  to 
take  it  to  the  emperor,  from  the  obligation  of  which  duty 
he  released  him.  He  asserted  the  right  to  punish  offenses 
against  the  civil  law,  and  "to  interpose  with  his  judgment 
and  annul  the  decisions  of  the  civil  tribunal."  He  reminded 
the  inhabitants  of  the  Tuscan  States,  who  owed  allegiance 
to  the  emperor, "  that  there  were,  two  great  lights  in  the  so- 
cial heaven,  having  their  seat  in  Italy,  the  lesser  of  which, 
the  imperial  authority,  received  its  light  from  the  greater, 
the  Papal  See."  He  fulminated  against  Otho,  Emperor  of 
Germany,  a  bull  of  excommunication ;  released  his  subjects 
from  their  allegiance  to  him,  and  stirred  up  a  rebellion 
against  him  and  in  favor  of  Frederick,  the  youthful  son  of 
Henry  VI.  As  we  have  seen  at  another  place,  he  released 
King  John  from  the  oath  he  had  taken  before  the  barons  at 
Runnyraede,  to  observe  and  enforce  the  salutary  provisions 
of  Magna  Charta;  and,  concentrating,  as  it  were,  all  his 
enormous  claim  of  power  in  a  single  expressive  thought,  he 
proudly  announced  the  maxim,  that "  the  pope,  in  virtue  of  the 
plenitude  of  his  power,  might  dispense  even  with  rights."(^°) 
The  very  nature  of  the  oath  exacted  by  Innocent  HI.  of 
Kinof  John  shows  the  inordinate  ambition  of  the  one  and 
the  pusillanimity  of  the  other.  Lingard  says,  *'  He  swore  that 
he  would  be  faithful  to  God,  to  the  blessed  Peter,  to  the 
Roman  Church,  to  Pope  Innocent,  and  to  Innocent's  rightful 
successors. "(^')  This  oath  was  extorted  by  the  papal  inter- 
dict, which  closed  all  the  churches  in  England  and  left  the 
dead  to  go  unburied,  and  by  the  terrible  thunder  of  excom- 
munication. It  placed  the  English  king  at  the  feet  of  the 
pope,  and  the  entire  destiny  of  the  English  people  in  his 
hands,  to  be  disposed  of,  not  as  their  wants  and  interests  de- 
manded, but  as  the  wants  and  interests  of  the  papacy  and 
the  welfare  of  the  Roman  Church  required.  What  wonder, 
then,  that,  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  Reformation  in  En- 
gland, an  earnest  protest  was  made  against  this  absorption 
by  the  pope  of  all  the  civil  power  of  the  Government,  and 
this  plotting  to  destroy  the  last  vestige  of  popular  authority. 
This  protest  might  have  been  heard  in  the  mutterings  of  dis- 

(")  Legge,  pp.  53-56.  (")  Lingard,  vol.  ii.,  p.  165. 

36 


562  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

content  among  the  body  of  the  people ;  but  it  was  unavail- 
ing, except  as  the  measures  already  narrated  grew  gradual- 
ly out  of  it.  Wycliffe,  a  hundred  years  after  the  papal  con- 
quest of  England,  and  two  hundred  years  before  Luther, 
maintained,  in  the  face  of  all  the  powerful  and  persecuting 
prelates  in  the  kingdom,  that  the  nation  had  forfeited  her 
dearest  rights  by  so  long  consenting  that  the  crown  should 
be  held  as  a  fief  of  the  See  of  Rome ;  and  that  the  king  could 
properly  and  rightfully  administer  the  government,  even 
though,  at  the  same  time,  he  refused  any  tribute  to  the  Pope 
of  Rome.  Pointing  out  the  life  and  example  of  Christ,  who 
was  "unwilling  to  become  a  ruler  in  civil  matters,"  and  did 
not  teach  his  disciples  to  seek  after  civil  dominion — he  de- 
clared, "  Therefore  it  behooves  us  to  require  that  the  pope 
should  be  observant  of  his  religious  obligations  after  this 
pattern.  It  is  clear,"  said  he,  "  that  we  are  bound  to  resist 
him  in  the  exaction  of  a  condition  which  can  not  be  proper 
to  him,  as  being  purely  civil."(^^) 

Wherein  does  the  difference  consist  between  the  claim  of 
papal  power  and  prerogatives  in  the  time  of  Wycliffe  and 
the  present  ?  The  infallibility  of  the  pope  means  now  just 
what  it  did  then,  with  whatsoever  has  been  done  and  said 
by  all  the  popes  and  in  all  the  centuries  since  superadded, 
as  the  means  of  overcoming  the  increased  power  of  resistance 
among  the  people  of  the  advancing  and  progressive  nations. 
The  doctrine  runs  back  to  the  remotest  times  so  as  to  include 
every  assertion  of  pontifical  power  made  by  any  of  the  popes 
from  the  beginning,  and  concentrates  it  all  in  the  present. 
If  any  single  pope,  by  virtue  of  "  the  primacy  of  St.  Peter," 
struck  nations  out  of  existence,  dethroned  monarchs,  released 
subjects  from  their  oaths  of  allegiance,  appointed  rulers  for 
the  people  without  their  consent,  extirpated  heretics  by  fire 
and  sword,  dispensed  the  obligation  of  the  most  solemn 
oaths  on  the  part  of  others,  and  violated  their  own,  then 
may  the  present  or  any  future  pope  do  any  or  all  of  these 
things  infallibly,  whensoever  it  shall  seem  to  him  that  the 
interests  of  the  Roman  Church  require  it.  There  is  no 
word  in  any  language  more  comprehensive  than  the  word 

C^)  "Day  of  Rest,"  London,  vol  iii.,  part  v.,  p.  238. 


AMERICAN  OATH  OF  ALLEGIANCE.  563 

infallibility.  It  embraces  every  thing  in  the  past,  the  pres- 
ent, and  the  future.  Even  while  its  earthly  possessor  re- 
mains in  the  world,  it  elevates  him  above  the  world,  and 
makes  him  a  copartner  with  God  in  the  exercise  of  divine 
power. 

Keeping  these  things  in  mind,  we  shall  be  the  better  en- 
abled to  apply  the  doctrines  of  the  papacy  to  the  condition 
of  things  in  our  own  country,  and  to  understand  what  the 
present  pope  expects  and  requires  of  those  citizens  who  rec- 
ognize him  as  a  ^^ domestic  prince''''  within  the  territorial 
limits  of  the  United  States.  We  Jiave  nothing  to  do,  now, 
with  the  question  how  far  and  how  many  of  these  citizens 
will  render  obedience  to  any  demands  he  shall  make:  it  is 
but  just  to  assume  that  multitudes  of  them  will  not,  when 
they  may  be  pressed  to  the  extremity  of  impairing  any  of 
the  fundamental  principles  of  the  Government.  But  we  have 
directly  and  immediately  to  do  with  the  papal  doctrines  he 
is  now  so  assiduously  laboring  to  re-establish,  so  that  we  may 
fully  comprehend  them,  in  all  their  length  and  breadth,  and 
understand  wherein,  if  successfully  established,  they  will  as- 
sail the  integrity  of  our  institutions. 

The  people  of  the  United  States,  appreciating  the  advan- 
tages and  distinctive  features  of  their  Government,  have  wise- 
ly and  unselfishly  provided  a  mode  by  which  those  born  in 
other  countries  may  enjoy,  to  a  like  extent  with  themselves, 
all  these  advantages.  They  have  provided  by  their  natural- 
ization laws  that  an  alien  may  become  a  citizen ;  and,  in  re- 
turn for  this  valuable  privilege,  have  required  of  him  only 
that  he  shall  take  an  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  Government, 
whereby  he  shall  swear  that  he  "  doth  absolutely  and  entire- 
ly renounce  and  abjure  all  allegiance  and  fidelity  to  every 
foreign  prince,  potentate,  state,  or  sovereignty  whatever." 
Such  an  invitation  to  citizenship  in  a  free  government,  ex- 
tended to  those  who  have  felt  the  burden  and  pressure  of 
absolutism,  commends  itself  to  the  admiration  of  mankind. 
It  stamped  our  Government,  from  the  beginning,  with  a  de- 
gree of  liberality  hitherto  unknown  among  the  nations. 

That  oaths  of  allegiance  are  sometimes  taken  by  those 
who  regard  them  as  mere  form,  and  as  having  no  binding 
obligation  upon  their  consciences,  ig  unquestionably  true. 


564  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

There  are  very  few  who  have  not  realized  the  truth  of  this, 
in  their  own  experience  and  observation.  But  it  is  equally- 
true  that  a  large  majority  of  those  who  become  naturalized 
citizens  of  the  United  States  become  so  with  a  full  and  prop- 
er appreciation  of  the  binding  nature  of  the  allegiance  they 
assume,  and  with  the  determination  to  discharge,  faithfully 
and  honestly,  all  the  obligations  which  attach  to  their  new 
relations.  Innumerable  considerations  combine  thus  to  in- 
fluence them,  apart  from  the  mere  integrity  of  personal  mo- 
tive and  conduct.  Chief  among  these  is  the  fact  that,  by 
coming  here,  they  have  sought  to  escape  the  consequences 
of  monarchical  rule,  and  to  better  their  condition  by  enjoy- 
ing the  protection  of  civil  institutions  which  recognize  the 
people,  and  not  a  monarch,  as  the  authors  of  the  law ;  and 
where  they,  by  also  becoming  law-makers,  may  increase  the 
sense  of  their  own  personal  dignity  and  importance  in  soci- 
ety, and  thus  elevate  themselves  and  their  posterity.  It  is 
altogether  natural  that,  after  obtaining  privileges  of  so  much 
personal  and  social  importance,  they  should  be  unwilling  to 
forfeit  or  lose  them  by  any  act  of  their  own.  But,  while 
this  is  readily  and  cheerfully  conceded  to  the  bulk  of  our 
naturalized  citizens,  the  fact  can  not  and  should  not  be  dis- 
guised that  there  are  some  among  them  whose  minds  are 
impressed,  or  liable  to  be  impressed,  with  the  belief  that,  al- 
though they  have  improved  their  condition  by  coming  to 
this  country,  it  may  be  yet  further  improved  by  the  estab- 
lishment of  an  independent  ecclesiastical  hierarchy,  with  au- 
thority to  subordinate  the  Government  to  such  laws  and 
regulations  as  they,  under  the  direction  and  dictation  of  the 
pope,  shall  consider  necessary  to  bring  the  people  under 
subjection  to  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  Their  liability 
to  this  impression  is  the  result  of  their  education,  which  is 
called  religious,  because  it  is  received  alone  from  priests, 
acting  as  officers  of  their  Cliurch.  One  of  the  first  princi- 
ples taught  them  is  the  belief  that  as  the  laws  of  God  are 
higher  than  the  laws  of  man,  and  the  eternal  welfare  of  their 
souls  of  more  importance  than  all  secular  and  temporal 
things,  therefore  the  State  must  obey  the  Church,  and  not 
be  permitted  to  enact  or  enforce  any  law  which  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  or  the  pope,  as  its  infallible  head,  shall  con- 


OBEDIENCE  TO  THE  POPE.  665 

sider  inconsistent  with  the  divine  law,  the  faith  of  the  Church, 
or  good  morals. 

Under  the  influence  of  this  teaching,  it  is  difficult  for  them 
to  realize  the  wisdom  and  virtues  exhibited  by  our  fathers 
in  resorting  to  revolution  to  throw  off  the  authority  of  the 
British  crown,  and  substituting  for  it  the  authority  of  the 
people.     They  have  a  sort  of  undefined  idea  that  the  peo- 
ple should  be  permitted  to  make  the  laws  by  which  they  are 
to  be  governed ;  and  this  idea,  which  arises  naturally  in  all 
minds,  might  be  developed  into  positive  belief  in  theirs,  and 
probably  would  be,  if  it  were  not  that  the  faith  and  teach- 
ings of  their  Church,  as  interpreted  and  explained  to  them 
by  their  priests,  forbid  it.     For  fear  that  they  may  be  influ- 
enced by  it,  they  are  held  under  the  strictest  surveillance 
by  these  priests,  who  employ  every  opportunity  to  remind 
them   that   they  owe   higher   allegiance   and  duty  to   the 
Church  than  to  the  State,  and  must  obey  the  pope  at  every 
and  any  cost,  even  though,  by  doing  so,  all  human  govern- 
ments and  laws  should  be  destroyed.     They  are  required  to 
believe  that  this  obedience  to  the  pope  is  obedience  to  God, 
because  God  has  placed  the  pope  above  all  human  govern- 
ments and  laws,  with  power,  as  his  only  infallible  represent- 
ative on  earth,  to  require  and  command  obedience  to  all  his 
decrees  upon  matters  of  faith  and  morals.     And  the  utmost 
precaution  is  observed  by  the  papal  hierarchy  to  exclude 
such  impressions  as  would  naturally  arise  in  their  minds 
from  the  contemplation  and  enjoyment  of  our  liberal  institu- 
tions, and  especially  from  their  participation  in  the  manage- 
ment of  public  affairs.     In  this  their  vigilance  is  extreme, 
and  exhibits  itself  most  strikingly  in  prohibiting  them  from 
permitting  their  children  to  mingle  with  ours  in  our  com- 
mon schools,  because  they  are  provided  by  the  State ;  and 
because,  in  order  that  they  may  comprehend  and  understand 
the  structure  of  the  Government,  the  pupils  are  taught  that 
the  people  are  the  primary  source  of  all  our  laws,  and  not 
the  pope  or  the  Church,  and  that  every  citizen  of  the  United 
States  is  bound  to  pay  obedience  to  them ;  the  pope,  the 
Church,  and  all  the  kings  and  princes  of  the  earth  to  the 
contrary  notwithstanding. 

Few  things  are  so  wonderful  as  the  readiness  with  which 


566  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

many  of  the  Roman  Catholic  part  of  our  population,  especial- 
ly among  those  who  are  naturalized,  accept  these  teachings 
and  act  upon  them ;  while,  at  the  same  time,  they  are  unwill- 
ing to  admit,  or  are  too  ignorant  to  realize,  their  inevitable 
tendency — which  is,  that  they  are  training  and  educating 
their  children  in  the  belief  that  our  Government  is  altogeth- 
er wrong  in  separating  Church  and  State ;  that  our  fathers 
were  wrong  in  resorting  to  revolution  to  get  rid  of  mon- 
archy ;  that  it  is  wrong  for  the  people  to  make  their  own 
laws ;  and  that  the  only  form  of  government  upon  which 
the  blessing  of  God  can  rest  is  that  wherein  the  Church  shall 
govern  the  State,  and  the  pope  the  Church.  They  fail  to  see 
that,  by  these  means,  they  are  aiding  in  the  erection  of  a 
"  State  within  the  State,"  whose  authority  will  be  sufficient, 
if  its  exercise  be  permitted,  to  regulate  the  Government 
and  society  by  its  laws,  and  to  compel  obedience  to  them 
by  force,  whenever  it  shall  become  necessary  to  resort  to  it. 
They  fail  also  to  see  that  this  state  of  things  can  not  exist 
so  long  as  our  form  of  government  shall  stand,  and  that 
those  who  require  them  to  aid  in  producing  it  would  not 
hesitate  to  sacrifice  the  Government  itself  if  by  that  means 
they  could  establish  their  hierarchical  system.  And,  since 
such  is  the  position  in  which  many  of  our  Roman  Catholic 
population  stand,  it  is  in  every  possible  sense  important  that 
the  country  should  realize  to  what  point  their  present  sub- 
serviency to  the  papal  hierarchy  may  by  possibility  lead 
them,  unless  something  be  done  to  counteract  its  influence. 
In  order  to  do  this  intelligently,  it  is  necessary  to  understand 
how  far  their  oath  of  allegiance  is  considered  by  the  Roman 
Catholic  hierarchy  as  standing  in  the  way  of  their  complete 
obedience  and  submission  to  the  pope,  whenever  he  shall 
consider  that  the  interest  of  the  Church  requires  any  change 
in  our  plan  of  government,  or  disobedience  to  any  of  our 
laws. 

The  obligation  of  an  oath  is  understood  to  arise  out  of  the 
law  authorizing  it.  Although  it  binds  the  conscience,  in  a 
moral  sense,  in  whatever  form  it  may  be  taken,  yet  if  not 
taken  pursuant  to  law  its  violation  does  not  amount  to  per- 
jury. An  invalid  law  is  universally  held  as  no  law  at  all, 
although  it  may  possess  the  ordinary  forms.     Hence,  if  an 


THE  NATURE  OF  AN  OATH.  567 

oath  is  required  by  a  law  which  is  null  and  void,  on  account 
of  its  violation  of  constitutional  or  fundamental  principles, 
no  legal  consequences  attach  to  its  violation — the  violator 
being  left  to  settle  the  matter  with  his  own  conscience. 
Hence,  also,  if  our  naturalization  laws  require  allegiance  to 
institutions  which  oppose  the  fundamental  principles  of 
Christianity  as  maintained  by  the  papacy,  and  are  therefore, 
in  the  opinion  of  the  pope,  invalid,  the  papal  hierarchy  readi- 
ly infer  that  the  violation  of  this  allegiance  would  involve 
no  crime  whatever,  but,  on  the  contrary,  would  arise  out  of 
the  obligation  of  duty  to  God  and  the  Church.  And  hence, 
again,  if  this  violation  be  merely  a  matter  of  conscience,  and 
the  pope  possesses  the  power — as  standing  in  the  place  of 
God — to  dispense  with  all  merely  conscientious  obligations, 
then  a  dispensation  from  him  would  place  all  Roman  Catho- 
lic violators  of  the  oath  of  allegiance  right  before  God  and 
the  Church.  To  comprehend  properly  the  results  which 
might  ensue  from  this  mode  of  reasoning,  it  is  necessary  to 
inquire  into  the  doctrines  and  teachings  of  the  Roman  Catho- 
lic Church  in  relation  to  oaths — their  nature  and  obligation. 
The  reader  will  remember  the  reference  heretofore  to  a 
controversy  carried  on,  some  years  ago,  between  the  Right 
Rev.  John  England,  Roman  Catholic  Bishop  of  Charleston, 
South  Carolina,  and  the  Rev.  Richard  Fuller,  a  Baptist  min- 
ister of  Beaufort,  in  the  same  State. ('^)  Being  afterward 
published  in  book  form,  under  the  auspices  of  Bishop  En- 
gland, it  is  proper  to  assume  that  what  he  has  there  said 
is  a  just  and  fair  exposition  of  the  doctrines  of  his  Church. 

(")  Ante.  This  book,  entitled  "  Concerning  the  Roman  Chancery,"  etc., 
was  published  in  1840,  by  Fielding  Lucas,  Jun.,  of  Baltimore,  and  by  John  P. 
Beale,  Charleston. 

A  book  was  published  as  late  as  1 874,  at  Rome,  witb  the  special  indorse- 
ment of  Beckk,  the  General  of  the  Jesuits,  and  with  the  approbation  of  the 
Propaganda  Fide,  and  therefore  of  the  pope,  wherein  the  obligation  of  a 
promissory  oath  is  thus  stated:  "Nunquara  obligatur  juramento,  qui  rem 
malam  juravit;  imo  dupliciter  peccat,  si  juramentum  adimpleat,  nempe  contra 
religionem,  et  virtutem,  cui  opponitur  materia  juramenti. — S.  Lig.,  n.  176." 
Translation  :  One  is  never  bound  by  an  oath  who  has  sworn  to  do  an  evil 
thing,  for  he  sins  doubly  if  he  shall  perform  his  oath  against  religion  and 
virtue,  to  which  the  substance  of  the  oath  is  opposed.  —  Theologia  Mora- 
lis,  P.  Joannis  Petri  Gury,  S.  J.,  Rome  ed.,,vol.  i.,  p.  310. 


568  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

Among  other  accusations  made  against  this  Church  by  Mr. 
Fuller,  this  was  a  prominent  one,  which  could  not  fail  to  ar- 
rest public  attention  and  excite  inquiry :  that  the  Third  Lat- 
eran  Council,  held  in  1179,  made  not  only  falsehood,  but  j9er- 
jury,  a  virtue  when  practiced  in  behalf  of  the  Church.  So 
grave  a  charge  as  this  greatly  excited  Bishop  England,  and 
drove  him,  after  some  ingenious  equivocation,  to  an  expla- 
nation of  the  doctrines  which  had  been  established  by  his 
Church.  •  He  endeavored  at  first  to  parry,  with  true  hie- 
rarchical adroitness,  the  home-thrusts  of  Mr.  Fuller;  but  the 
latter  was  too  able  and  learned  a  disputant  to  allow  this, 
and  the  bishop  was  at  last  driven  to  a  degree  of  particulari- 
ty which,  in  all  probability,  he  did  not  contemplate  at  the 
beginning  of  the  controversy.  His  language  should  com- 
mand the  most  serious  attention.     He  said : 

"Among  Catholics,  sir,  perjury  is  the  violation  of  a  lawful 
oath,  or  the  taking  of  an  unlawful  one.  Thus,  if  we  swear 
to  declare  the  truth,  and  do  not  declare  it,  it  would  be  per- 
jury; and  should  a  man  attempt  to  bind  me  by  the  form  of 
an  oath  to  declare  a  falsehood,  I  would  be  guilty  of  perjury, 
in  going  through  the  form  to  tell  a  lie,  but  I  am  obliged  to 
go  against  the  words  by  which  I  appeared  to  be  bound,  be- 
cause it  is  no  oath,  but  a  perjury.  An  oath  can  not  be  a 
bond  of  iniquity.  A  conspirator  who  has  sworn  with  his  fel- 
lows to  commit  robbery  or  murder  is  not  bound  by  his  oath. 
In  fact,  it  is  no  oath ;  to  be  an  oath  it  must  have  three  qual- 
ities, viz.,  truth,  judgment,  and  justice:  the  defect  of  either 
renders  it  no  oath.^\^*) 

Here  the  distinctive  principle  is  announced  that  an  unlaw- 
ful oaiih  can  not  be  taken  without  perjury;  but  if  taken,  he 
who  takes  it  must  go  against  it,  because  it  is  no  oath  in  the 
opinion  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  With  this  as  his 
postulate.  Bishop  England  proceeds  to  explain  what  the  di- 
rect action  of  this  Church  has  been  upon  this  important  sub- 
ject. He  quotes  Canon  XVI.  of  the  Third  Lateran  Council, 
which  he  calls  "  the  legislature  of  the  Church,"  wherein  this 
sentence  is  found : 

"For  they  are  not  to  be  called  oaths, but  rather  perjuries, 

(")  "Letters  Concerning  the  Roman  Chancery,"  p.  157. 


CHURCH  MUST  PREVAIL  OVER  STATE.  559 

which  are  in  opposition  to  the  welfare  of  the  Church  and  the 
e7iactments  of  the  holy  fathers^ (^^) 

Then,  addressing  himself  directly  to  Mr.  Fuller,  the  bishop 
defends  these  principles  as  follows : 

"  I  need  not  inform  you  that  the  first  obligation  of  every 
citizen  is  the  law  of  God ;  the  second  is  the  constitution  of 
his  State  ;  and  as  no  form  of  oath  could  bind  him  to  the  vio- 
lation of  the  divine  law,  so,  eiccep^  the  constitution  of  his  State 
should  conflict  with  the  diviyie  law^  no  form  of  oath  could 
bind  him  to  violate  that  constitution ;  and  should  there  be 
such  a  conflict,  he  is  bound  to  the  State  in  every  other  point 
save  that  in  which  the  conflict  exists:  and  his  exemption  in 
this  instance  arises  from  that  sound  maxim  of  legal  interpre- 
tation that  where  two  laws  are  in  irreconcilable  conflict, 
that  of  the  first  or  highest  authority  rnust  prevail.  These  are 
the  principles  which  I  have  been  taught  from  Roman  Cath- 
olic authors,  by  Roman  Catholic  professors ;  they  are  the 
principles  which  I  find  recognized  in  all  enactments  and  in- 
terpretations of  councils  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  from 
the  council  at  Jerusalem,  held  by  the  apostles,  down  to  the 
present  day."(") 

To  make  the  matter  so  clear  that  no  room  for  misappre- 
hension should  exist,  he  quotes  from  chapter  xix.  of  the  Ro- 
man Catholic  catechism  the  following  questions  and  an- 
swers : 

"§.  What  else  is  commanded  by  the  second  command- 
ment? 

"^.  To  keep  our  iawful  oaths  and  vows. 

"  Q'  What  is  forbidden  by  this  commandment  ? 

"^.  All  false,  rash,  unjust,  and  unnecessary  oaths ;  also 
cursing,  swearing,  blaspheming,  and  profane  words  (Matt,  v., 
34;  James  v.,  12). 

"  Q.  Is  it  ever  lawful  to  swear  ? 

"^.  It  is :  when  God's  honor,  our  own  or  our  neighbor's 
good,  or  necessary  defense,  requires  it. 

Q^)  "Non  enim  dicenda  sunt  juramenta,  sed  potius  perjiiria,  quae  contra 
ntilitatem  ecclesiasticam  et  sanctorum  patrum  veniunt  instituta." — Ibid ,  p 
158. 

('")  "Letters  Concerning  the  Roman  Chancery,"  pp.  162,  163. 


570  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

"  Q'  What  do  you  mean  by  an  unjust  oath  ? 

"J..  An  oath  injurious  to  God,  to  ourselves,  or  to  our  neigh- 
bor. 

"  Q.  Is  a  person  obliged  to  keep  an  unjust  oath  ? 

"^.  N'o;  he  sinned  in  taking  it,  and  would  sin  also  in 
keeping  it. 

"  Q.  Is  a  person  obliged  to  keep  a  lawful  oath  ? 

"^.  Yes;  and  it  would  be  perjury  to  break  it. 

"  Q'  What  is  perjury  ? 

"^.  The  breaking  of  a  lawful  oath,  or  the  taking  of  an  un- 
lawful one. 

"§.  Is  perjury  a  great  crime? 

"^.  It  is  a  most  grievous  one."(") 

And  then,  summing  up  his  argument  and  putting  the  doc- 
trine in  the  most  compact  form,  he  says : 

"  My  argument,  sir,  would  have  been  more  fairly  put  in 
this  way:  Man's  first  duty  is  to  observe  the  divine  law; 
but  the  divine  law  requires  that  an  oath  shall  bind  when  it 
is  taken  in  truth,  in  judgment,  and  in  justice,  and  that  it  shall 
not  bind  when  either  of  these  conditions  is  wanted.  The  di- 
vine  law  is  paramount  to  every  other  law,  constitution,  tribu- 
nal, or  authority.  Therefore,  no  law,  constitution,  tribunal, 
or  authority  can  allow  a  man  to  swear  falsely,  to  swear  in 
support  of  injustice,  or  to  swear  rashly,  or  injudiciously,  or 
profanely.  No  tribunal,  civil  or  ecclesiastical,  can  do  what 
God  himself  could  not  do! — he  can  not  do  what  is  incompat- 
ible with  his  divine  attributes:  the  sanctioning  of  perjury 
would  be  incompatible  therewith,  and  therefore  no  tribunal 
could  sanction  it."(^^) 

The  language  here  employed  by  this  distinguished  prelate 
has  the  merit  of  simplicity  and  frankness,  and  it  requires  no 
critical  analysis  to  understand  its  meaning.  It  lays  down 
the  following  propositions  as  settled  and  established  by  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church : 

1.  An  unlawful  oath  can  not  be  taken  without  peijury. 

C'')  "Letters  Conceiiiing  the  Roman  Chancery,"  pp.  190, 191. 

C*)  Ihid.^  pp.  194,  195.  This  argument  is  found,  as  set  forth  in  the  text, 
in  all  Roman  Catholic  publications  on  the  subject ;  but  the  manner  in  which 
Bishop  England  makes  it  is  preferred  on  account  of  the  authority  which  his 
name  and  office  carry  with  them. 


WHEN  AN  OATH  IS  NOT  BINDING.  571 

2.  He  who  takes  an  unlav^ful  oath  is  not  obliged  to  ob- 
serve it,  but  should  go  against  it. 

3.  An  oath  can  not  be  a  bond  of  iniquity ;  that  is,  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  divine  law. 

4.  To  be  a  binding  oath  it  must  have  the  three  qualities 
of  truth,  judgment,  and  justice;  the  absence  of  either  ren- 
ders it  no  oath. 

5.  They  are  not  oaths,  but  perjuries,  which  are  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  welfare  of  the  Churchy  and  the  enactments  of  the 
holy  fathers. 

6.  1\\Q  first  obligation  of  every  citizen  is  the  law  of  God; 
the  second  is  the  Constitution  of  his  State. 

7.  The  obligation  of  a  citizen  to  the  constitution  of  his 
State  is  only  binding  when  it  does  not  conflict  with  the  di- 
vine law. 

8.  The  obligation  of  a  citizen  to  the  constitution  of  his 
state  is  7iot  binding  when  it  does  conflict  with  the  divine 
law. 

9.  The  divine  law  is  of  higher  authority  than  the  law  of 
the  State,  and  must  always  prevail  when  they  come  in  con- 
flict. 

10.  A  person  is  not  obliged  to  keep  an  unjust  oath;  he 
sinned  in  taking  it,  and  would  sin  also  in  keeping  it. 

11.  An  oath  is  not  binding  when  it  lacks  the  element  of 
either  justice,  judgment,  or  truth. 

12.  No  law,  constitution,  tribunal,  or  authority  can  bind  a 
man  to  act  unjustly ;  God  can  not  even  do  it. 

From  this  recapitulation  it  will  be  seen  that  in  order  to 
determine  upon  the  binding  obligation  of  an  oath,  it  is  nec- 
essary, in  any  given  case,  to  understand  its  character.  If  it 
is  unlawful,  it  is  not  binding.  To  this,  as  an  abstract  propo- 
sition, there  may  be  no  special  objection ;  but  the  difficulty 
lies  in  agreeing  upon  what  is  lawful  and  what  unlawful.  Let 
us  give  the  doctrine  a  practical  application  as  it  is  under- 
stood by  those  whose  minds  are  trained  in  papal  polemics. 

Having  separated  the  Church  from  the  State,  and  made 
the  latter  entirely  independent  of  the  former,  we  have  pro- 
vided in  our  National  Constitution  that  it  and  all  the  laws 
passed  pursuant  to  it  are  "  the  supreme  law  of  the  land," 
binding  alike  upon  all  citizens.     In  order,  therefore,  to  de- 


572  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

cide  whether  the  oath  of  naturalization  is  or  is  not  lawful, 
we  look  to  the  Constitution  and  the  powers  it  confers  upon 
Congress  as  the  legislative  department  of  the  Government. 
By  that  instrument  it  is  provided  that  Congress  shall  have 
power  "  to  establish  a  uniform  rule  of  naturalization  " — thus 
leaving,  in  the  legal  or  common  mind,  no  sort  of  doubt  about 
the  legality  of  the  oath  of  naturalization  under  our  laws. 
Hence,  in  view  of  our  Constitution  and  laws,  such  an  oath  is 
both  lawful  and  of  binding  obligation.  But,  according  to 
Bishop  England,  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  does  not  rea- 
son in  this  way.  It  goes  behind  the  Constitution  in  order  to 
inquire  whether  it  violates  the  divine  law  or  not;  whether 
it  is  just  or  unjust ;  whether  or  not  it  is  in  opposition  to  the 
welfare  of  the  Church  and  the  enactments  of  the  holy  fa- 
thers ;  whether  it  is  consistent,  or  inconsistent,  with  truth ; 
and  if  it  finds  the  Constitution  lacking  in  any  of  these  essen- 
tial elements,  whatever  oath  it  shall  authorize,  looking  to 
any  of  these  ends,  or  in  any  way  bearing  upon  them,  is  un- 
lawful, and  not  binding.  Recognizing  no  other  form  of  gov- 
ernment as  consistent  with  the  divine  law,  except  that  which 
keeps  the  State  and  the  Church  united,  it,  of  course,  meas- 
ures all  laws  by  the  standard  of  the  divine  law,  and  regards 
as  invalid  and  not  binding  all  such  as  do  not  come  up  to  that 
standard.  It  receives  the  divine  law  from  itself — that  is, 
from  the  pope  as  God's  only  infallible  representative  upon 
earth;  and  whatsoever  constitution  or  law  shall  be  found  op- 
posed to  its  welfare  is  unlawful,  and  must  not  be  obeyed.  It 
searches  the  enactments  of  the  holy  fathers  for  precedents 
by  which  to  decide  upon  the  character  of  all  existing  insti- 
tutions; and  whatsoever  they  shall  not  sanction  and  approve 
must  fall  before  its  supreme  authority.  Let  us  apply  these 
principles  and  rules  more  particularly  to  the  subject  in  hand 
— our  naturalization  laws. 

The  oath  of  allegiance  implies,  necessarily,  the  obligation 
to  support  the  Government  and  maintain  its  principles.  In 
direct  and  express  terms,  it  requires  the  support  of  the  Con- 
stitution as  the  fundamental  law;  and  the  oath, in  this  form, 
is  taken  by  every  naturalized  citizen.  How  does  the  Ro- 
man Catholic  Church,  with  the  pope  as  its  expounder  of  the 
divine  law,  look  at  this  oath?     Taking  up  the  Constitution, 


PAPAL  PRINCIPLES  OF  GOVERNMENT.  573 

it  finds  the  following  principles  of  government  distinctly 
and  emphatically  set  forth :  the  separation  of  Church  and 
State,  and  the  Church  subordinated  to  the  State,  and  re- 
quired to  obey  its  laws ;  the  people  made  the  source  of  all 
laws  and  of  all  political  authority ;  the  prohibition  of  any 
law  respecting  an  establishment  of  religion,  or  interfering 
with  the  free  exercise  thereof;  and  the  freedom  of  speech 
and  of  the  press  fully  secured.  How  does  it  regard  these 
provisions?  In  every  form  in  which  it  can  authoritatively 
speak,  and  especially  through  the  mouths  of  a  multitude  of 
its  most  illustrious  popes,  it  has  declared  that  the  divine 
law  requires  the  Church  and  the  State  to  be  united,  and  the 
State  to  be  subordinated  to  the  Church,  being  required  to 
obey  its  commands  as  the  only  mode  of  obeying  God;  that 
the  people  are  incapable  of  self-government,  and  that  it 
must  declare  what  laws  they  shall,  and  what  they  shall  not, 
obey;  that  the  law  of  God  commands  "an  establishment  of 
religion,"  with  the  pope  at  its  head,  with  sufficient  power 
and  authority  to  govern  the  world;  that  Christ  established 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  and  founded  it  upon  the  apos- 
tle Peter,  making  all  other  forms  of  religious  belief  heretical 
and  sinful ;  and,  therefore,  that  the  "  free  exercise  "  of  relig- 
ious belief  is  violative  of  the  divine  law  ;  and  that  the  free- 
dom of  speech  and  of  the  press  are  "  in  opposition  to  the 
welfare  of  the  Church,"  and  tend  to  irreligion  and  infidelity, 
by  giving  license  to  free  discussion,  by  inviting  the  exercise 
of  individual  reason  and  judgment  in  the  formation  of  re- 
ligious faith,  and  by  stimulating  the  people  to  revolution, 
which  is  against  the  law  of  God,  because  violative  of  the 
"divine  right  of  kings"  to  govern  mankind.  Looking  upon 
the  foregoing  provisions  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  in  the  light  of  these  authoritative  teachings,  the  Ro- 
man Catholic  Church  must,  of  necessity,  regard  each  one  of 
them  as  opposed  to  the  divine  law,  the  welfare  of  the  Church, 
and  the  teachings  of  the  holy  fathers :  such  is  the  logical  re- 
sult of  its  mode  of  reasoning.  Hence,  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  in  so  far  as  these  principles  are  involved, 
is  not  binding  upon  the  conscience  of  any  who  adhere  to 
those  doctrines  of  that  Church  which  are  dictated  by  the 
papacy.     Hence,  also,  an  oath  to  support  these  principles  of 


574  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

the  Constitution  is  perjury,  and  no  oath  at  all,  because  it 
enjoins  disobedience  to  the  divine  law.  Hence,  again,  our 
naturalization  oath  is  not  binding  upon  the  supporter  of 
papal  infallibility,  because  it  obliges  him  to  support  princi- 
ples which  are  opposed  to  the  teachings  of  the  pope  and  the 
Church,  and  which  he  is  commanded  to  resist  as  the  only 
mode  of  securing  the  favor  of  God.  And,  still  further,  it  is 
the  inevitable  consequence  of  these  papal  doctrines — as  an- 
nounced by  Bishop  England,  and  involved  in  the  recent  dog- 
ma of  papal  infallibility — that  not  only  these  principles  of 
our  Constitution,  but  all  other  constitutions  and  laws  which 
the  pope  shall  declare  to  be  in  opposition  to  the  law  of  God, 
"  the  welfare  of  the  Church,  and  the  enactments  of  the  holy 
fathers,"  must  be  resisted  by  all  who  hope  for  the  approba- 
tion of  the  Church,  and  expect  salvation  in  the  world  to  come ; 
thus  making  all  human  institutions  dependent  upon  the  will 
of  a  single  man — upon  whomsoever  shall,  for  the  time  being, 
be  the  "  King  of  Rome  !" 

It  is  altogether  probable  that  Bishop  England  did  not 
foresee  the  ultimate  tendency  of  the  doctrine  he  defended 
with  so  much  learning  and  ability ;  for  at  the  time  of  his 
controversy  with  Mr.  Fuller,  the  doctrine  of  papal  infallibil- 
ity was  not  recognized  as  a  part  of  the  faith  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  and  its  hierarchy  in  the  United  States  had 
not  become  sufficiently  bold  to  avow  their  support  of  it,  or 
openly  to  assume,  as  they  now  do,  a  defense  of  the  princi- 
ples and  enormities  of  the  Jesuits  or  ultramontanes  of  Eu- 
rope. They  were  "  biding  their  time  " — waiting  for  the  ac- 
cumulation of  such  strength  as  would  aiford  some  promise 
of  ultimate  victory,  and  therefore  spoke  upon  all  the  delicate 
subjects  touching  the  papal  power  and  prerogatives  with 
suppressed  voice  and  "  bated  breath." 

But  there  were  observant  eyes  in  Europe  constantly 
watching  the  progress  of  events  in  the  United  States ;  for 
it  has  become  almost  a  proverb  that  Jesuitism  never  sleeps. 
Those  who  possessed  a  vision  keen  enough  to  see  that  the 
American  hierarchy  were  well  versed  in  the  law  of  obedi- 
ence, served  a  valuable  purpose  to  the  pope  by  influencing 
him  to  advance  his  claims  and  pretensions,  so  as  to  educate 
the  whole  Roman  Catholic  world  up  to  the  position  it  now 


PREPARATION  FOR  PAPAL  INFALLIBILITY.  575 

occupies.  Books  setting  forth  these  claims  and  pretensions, 
some  covertly,  others  openly,  multiplied  in  every  direction. 
Among  the  authors  of  these  none  won  more  distinction  than 
the  Rev.  J.  Balmez,  a  Roman  Catholic  priest  of  Spain,  who 
was  the  author  of  a  work  which  exhibits  great  power,  learn- 
ing, and  erudition,  by  which  he  designed  to  show  that  the 
world  is  far  more  indebted  to  "  Catholicity,"  as  he  calls  it, 
than  to  Protestantism  for  its  present  advanced  civilization. 
This  work,  originally  in  Spanish,  was  soon  translated  into 
French,  and  then  into  English,  so  that  a  large  circulation 
should  be  secured  for  it.  It  was  published  in  the  United 
States  by  the  Roman  Catholic  publishing  houses,  and  was 
commended  in  the  highest  terms  by  the  authorities  of  the 
Church.  In  the  preface  to  the  American  edition  the  author 
is  spoken  of  as  one  who  "  has  supplied  the  age  with  a  work 
which  is  peculiarly  adapted  to  its  wants,  and  which  must 
command  a  general  attention  in  the  United  States."  The 
Roman  Catholic  is  especially  referred  to  it  as  furnishing  rea- 
sons why  he  should  "  admire  still  more  the  glorious  charac- 
ter of  the  faith  which  he  professes;"  and  the  Protestant  is 
kindly  informed  that  it "  will  open  his  eyes  to  the  incompat- 
ibility of  his  principles  with  the  happiness  of  mankind."('*) 

This  book  was  written  in  order  to  counteract  the  ^^perni- 
cious influence  exerted  among  his  countrymen  by  Guizot's 
lectures  on  European  civilization. "f^")  But  there  were  spe- 
cial objects  designed  to  be  accomplished  by  it,  which  were 
very  distinctly  and  emphatically  avowed.     It  is  said,  for  ex- 

(")  "Protestantism  and  Catholicity  compared  in  their  EiFects  on  the  Civ- 
ilization of  Europe,"  by  Balmes,  p.  v.  of  Prefoce  to  the  American  edition^ 
Published  by  John  Murphy  &  Co.,  Baltimore,  and  by  George  Quigley,  Pitts^ 
burgh,  1851.  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  Archbishop  Bayley,  of  Baltimore, 
who  has  deemed  an  effort  to  break  the  force  of  Mr.  Gladstone's  late  pam- 
phlet necessary  in  this  country,  as  Archbishop  Manning  did  in  England,  has 
referred  to  this  author  as  uttering  authoritatively  the  true  doctrines  of  the 
Church.  In  his  letter  of  November  17th,  1874— published  in  most  of  the 
leading  papers — he  says:  "When  I  find  time  I  will  write  to  you  more  at 
length,  and  recommend  to  you  certain  works  to  read  which  will  show  you 
more  fully  how  little  our  theologians  or  political  writers,  like  De  Maistre,  or 
De  Bonald,  or  Balmez,  have  entertained  any  of  the  nonsense  which  Mr.  Glad- 
stone falsely  attributes  to  us." 

O  Ibid.,  p.  ix. 


576  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

ample,  that  the  pope  "is  the  best  guide  of  men  in  the  path 
of  liberty  and  progress,"  and  that  the  present  pontiff,  Pius 
IX., "  shows  a  profound  knowledge  of  the  evils  which  afflict 
society." (")  It  was  manifestly  intended  to  aid  in  laying  the 
groundwork  upon  which  the  structure  of  papal  infallibility 
was  to  be  erected. 

In  a  work  so  highly  commended  as  this  is  to  American 
readers,  one  would  scarcely  expect  to  find  a  labored  effort 
to  prove  that  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  our  Government, 
taken  by  a  Roman  Catholic,  amounts  to  nothing,  and  has  no 
binding  obligation,  when  the  loelfare  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  requires  it  to  he  disregarded.  But  those  who  pre- 
pared it  for  publication  here  understood  perfectly  well  the 
character  of  the  persons  into  whose  hands  it  would  mostly 
fall,  and  that  their  minds  were  easily  impressed  by  any 
thing,  however  extravagant  or  preposterous,  put  forth  au- 
thoritatively in  behalf  of  their  Church.  And  they  did  not 
miscalculate,  as  we  may  infer  from  the  fact  that  in  the 
United  States  the  dogma  of  infallibility  has  been  accepted 
with  greater  unanimity  and  more  readily  than  in  any  other 
country  in  the  world — a  fact  which  renders  an  exposition 
of  the  teachings  of  this  book,  and  others  like  it,  not  only  in- 
teresting and  instructive,  but  of  more  than  ordinary  impor- 
tance, as  well  as  significance. 

This  author  has  a  chapter  upon  "Resistance  to  the  Civil 
Power,"  in  which,  after  the  necessary  preliminary  discussion, 
he  begs  his  readers  to  "  bear  in  mind  the  general  principles 
at  all  times  inculcated  by  Catholicity,  viz.,  the  obligation  of 
obeying  legitimate  authority. "(")  In  order  to  make  the  de- 
sired application  of  this  principle,  and  to  explain  what  he 
means  by  legitimate  authority,  he  puts  and  answers  a  most 
pertinent  question, as  follows:  "In  the  first  place,  Are  we  to 
obey  the  civil  power  vnhen  it  commands  something  that  is  evil 
in  itself?  No^we  are  not;  for  the  simple  reason  that  what 
is  evil  in  itself  is  forbidden  by  God  :  now,  we  must  obey  God 
rather  than  man."(") 


(*')  "Protestantism  and  Catholicity  compared  in  their  Effects  on  the  Civ- 
ilization of  Europe,"  by  Balmes,  p.  xi. 

D  Ibid.,  ch.  11  v.,  p.  325.  O  Ibid.,  p.  326. 


LIMITATION  OF  STATE  AUTHORITY.  577 

He  does  not  stop  here  to  explain  what  is  and  what  is  not 
evil,  but  proceeds  as  follows:  "In  the  second  place,  ^re  we 
to  obey  the  civil  poioer  when  it  interferes  in  matters  not  in- 
cluded in  the  circle  of  its  faculties?  JSTo;  for  with  regard  to 
these  matters  it  is  not  a  power. "C**) 

In  order  that  there  may  be  no  misapprehension  of  his 
meaning,  he  then  points  out  the  distinction  between  the 
temporal  and  the  spiritual  power,  and  insists  upon  the  inde- 
pendence of  the  latter  with  respect  to  the  former.  In  his 
view,  the  Church  must  be  left  by  the  State  perfectly  free  to 
act  for  itself,  in  all  matters  within  the  spiritual  jurisdiction. 
It  must  in  no  sense  be  subject  to  the  laws  of  the  State,  be- 
cause that  would  impair  its  freedom.  And  whenever  the 
State  undertakes  to  subject  the  Church  to  its  laws,  it  passes 
beyond  "the  circle  of  its  faculties."  He  then  continues: 
"  Ever  since  the  foundation  of  the  Church,  this  principle  of 
the  independence  of  the  spiritual  power  has  at  all  times 
served,  by  the  mere  fact  of  its  existence,  to  remind  men  that 
the  rights  of  the  civil  power  are  limited;  that  there  are 
things  beyond  its  province — cases  in  which  a  man  may  say, 
and  ought  to  say,  I  will  not  ohey^i^^) 

Satisfied  with  his  argument  to  maintain  and  enforce  these 
propositions — and  it  undoubtedly  displays  great  ingenuity 
and  ability — he  reverts  to  his  original  question,  and  repeats 
what  he  had  already  said,  but  in  more  expressive  terms, 
thus:  "It  remains,  then,  established  that  we  are  to  be  sub- 
ject to  the  civil  power  so  long  as  it  does  not  go  beyond  its 
proper  limits ;  but  that  the  Catholic  doctrine  never  enjoins 
obedience  when  the  civil  power  oversteps  the  limits  of  its 
faculties."f^) 

He  adopts  the  general  and  commonly  accepted  definition 
of  unjust  laws,  such  as  are  against  the  common  welfare,  pub- 
lic policy,  etc.,  in  regard  to  which  nobody  would  enter  into 
controversy  with  him.  But  he  goes  beyond  this,  and  finds 
other  laws  equally  unjust,  because  of  their  opposition  to  the 
divine  law.    He  says:  "Laws  may  also  be  unjust  in  another 


Q'^)  "Protestantism  and  Catholicity  compared  in  their  Effects  on  the  Civ- 
ilization of  Europe,"  by  Balmes,  ch.  liv.,  p.  326. 

Olbid.  /  O /6tW.,  p.  328. 

37 


578  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

point  of  view,  when  they  are  contrary  to  the  will  of  God ; 
as  the  laws  of  tyrants  enforcing  idolatry,  or  any  thing  else 
contrary  to  the  divine  law.  With  respect  to  such  laws,  it  is 
not  allowable  under  any  circumstances  to  obey  them ;  for, 
as  it  is  said  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  'We  must  obey  God 
rather  than  man.'  "(*') 

Having  thus  established  his  premises,  he  lays  down,  as  the 
logical  result  of  the  doctrines  maintained  by  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  these  rules:  "1.  We  can  not,  under  any 
circumstances,  obey  the  civil  power  when  its  commands  are 
opposed  to  the  divine  law.  2.  When  laws  are  unjust,  they 
are  not  binding  in  conscience.  3.  It  may  become  necessary 
to  obey  these  laws  from  motives  of  prudence,  that  is,  in  or- 
der to  avoid  scandal  and  commotions.''^*^) 

These  are  the  principles  upon  which  he  is  rejoiced  to  know 
that  "  the  admirable  institution  of  European  monarchy  was 
founded ;"  principles  which  he  thinks  it  the  duty  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church  to  maintain  throughout  the  world, 
because,  as  he  says,  they  constitute  "  the  moral  defenses  by 
which  that  monarchy  is  surrounded."  He  thinks  the  minds 
of  men  are  already  sufficiently  "wearied  with  foolish  decla- 
mations against  the  tyranny  of  kings,"  and  would  bring  back 
to  these  salutary  principles  all  such  governments  as  have 
departed  from  them.C^®) 

These  principles  are  the  same,  substantially,  with  those 
laid  down  by  Bishop  England,  and,  if  applied  in  this  coun- 
try, would  test  all  our  civil  institutions  by  their  conformity 
to  the  divine  law.  We  have  established  our  Government 
upon  the  theory  that  God  recognizes  the  personality  of  each 
individual,  and  will  deal  with  him  accordingly.  Therefore 
the  conscience  of  every  man  is  left  free,  that  he  may  main- 
tain whatsoever  religious  belief  it  shall  approve.  Necessa- 
rily, in  order  to  establish  and  preserve  this  great  principle, 
every  individual  and  all  Church  organizations  are  required 
to  obey  the  laws  of  the  State.  The  spiritual  power  is  not 
made  independent  of  the  temporal,  but,  in  so  far  as  the  au- 


(")  "Protestantism  and  Catholicity  compared  in  their  Effects  on  the  Civ- 
ilization of  Europe,"  by  Balmes,  ch.  liv.,  p.  328. 

('«)  Ibid.  O  Ibid.,  p.  330. 


THE  STATE  TRIED  BY  THE  DIVINE  LAW.  579 

thority  to  enact  the  necessary  laws  for  the  public  good  is 
concerned,  the  temporal  power  is  made  independent  of  the 
spiritual.  In  all  else  the  spiritual  power  is  left  unimpair- 
ed ;  that  is,  it  is  left  independent  within  its  proper  spiritual 
sphere.  But  according  to  the  papal  doctrine,  as  announced 
by  this  distinguished  author,  this  places  our  Government  in 
the  condition  of  having  transcended  the  proper  "  limits  of 
its  faculties,"  of  having  violated  the  divine  law,  and  of  re- 
quiring certain  obligations  of  obedience  from  every  citizen 
which  can  not  be  yielded  by  those  who  obey  the  papacy 
without  disobedience  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  their 
Church  organization.  He  insists  that  the  Government  shall 
be  arraigned  at  the  bar  of  the  papacy,  where  it  shall  be 
judged  by  the  divine  law;  that  the  pope  alone,  as  God's 
vicegerent,  is  the  only  proper  and  infallible  interpreter  of 
that  law,  and  that  whatsoever  principle  of  the  Government 
he  shall  declare  to  be  unjust  or  heretical  shall  have  no  bind- 
ing obligation  upon  the  conscience  of  any  Roman  Catholic. 
Already  the  present  pope  has  declared  that,  in  order  that  a 
government  shall  conform  to  the  divine  law,  the  State  and 
the  Church  must  be  so  united  that  the  State  shall  obey  the 
Church;  that  the  ecclesiastical  or  hierarchical  body  must 
govern  itself  by  its  own  laws,  and  not  be  governed  by,  or 
answerable  to,  the  laws  of  the  State,  even  for  crime ;  that 
there  must  be  but  one  form  of  religion,  and  that  the  religion 
of  Rome ;  that  all  other  forms  of  religion  except  that  of 
Rome,  including  the  Protestantism  of  the  United  States, 
are  heretical,  and  ought  to  be  annihilated ;  that  freedom  of 
speech  and  of  the  press  and  of  conscience  are  all  inconsist- 
ent with  the  "  divine  right  of  kings  "  to  govern,  and,  there- 
fore, should  not  be  tolerated  or  allowed;  that  the  present 
"  progress  "  of  the  nations,  which  we  attribute  greatly  to 
the  influence  of  our  example,  must  be  arrested,  and  the  world 
turned  back  to  the  mediaeval  times ;  that  he  must  be  recog- 
nized as  the  only  just  and  infallible  expounder  of  the  Word 
of  God,  and  as  incapable  of  error  in  all  matters  of  faith  and 
morals ;  that  all  mankind  must  obey  him,  in  faith  and  mor- 
als, because  he  stands  upon  earth  in  the  place  of  God ;  and 
that  the  Church,  whose  tremendous  power  is  concentrated  in 
his  hands,  may  employ /orce  whenever  he  shall  deem  it  nee- 


580  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

essary  to  exact  obedience  as  the  means  of  reaching  these  re- 
sults. All  these  things  are  openly  and  distinctly  avowed  in 
his  Encyclical  and  Syllabus ;  are  set  forth  in  books,  pam- 
phlets, newspapers,  and  tracts  of  immense  circulation ;  and 
are  foreshadowed  by  the  persistent  movements  of  the  Ro- 
man Catholic  hierarchy  all  over  the  world.  And  it  requires 
but  an  ordinary  amount  of  intelligence  to  see  that  if  the 
time  should  ever  come  when  these  principles  shall  obtain 
the  ascendency  in  the  United  States,  it  must  be,  necessarily, 
at  the  expense  of  the  fundamental  and  most  cherished  prin- 
ciples of  our  Government,  the  very  principles  whose  protec- 
tion the  Roman  Catholic  emigrants  from  Europe  professed- 
ly desired  to  secure  when  they  abandoned  their  citizenship 
among  the  effete  monarchies  of  the  Old  World  and  hopeful- 
ly acquired  it  in  the  New. 

But,  in  order  to  demonstrate  the  legitimate  use  of  the 
right  of  resistance  to  civil  authority,  this  Jesuit  author  ex- 
plains the  "Catholic  doctrines"  in  relation  to  de-facto  gov- 
ernments, that  is,  governments  existing  by  what  he  calls  a 
"  consummated  act,"  whether  of  revolution  or  otherwise,  and 
in  the  actual  possession  of  all  necessary  power.  That  these 
doctrines  may  be  comprehended,  it  is  necessary  to  keep  in 
mind  that,  according  to  the  teachings  of  Rome,  governments 
de  facto  are  those  which  have  been  established  by  the  peo- 
ple upon  the  overthrow  of  the  kingly  authority — which  is 
considered  the  only  legitimate  authority.  Governments  de 
jure  are  such  as  are  based  upon  the  law  of  God,  with  kings 
at  their  head,  who  shall  obey  the  pope  as  the  highest  au- 
thority upon  earth.  In  this  view,  all  Roman  Catholic  mon- 
archies are  governments  de  jure,  and  therefore  legitimate ; 
while  all  popular  republics  are  governments  de  facto,  and 
therefore  illegitimate.  Kings  must  always  rule ;  the  people, 
never.  Hence,  the  old  Roman  Catholic  monarchy  of  Spain, 
overthrown  a  few  years  ago,  was  a  government  de  jure,  to 
which  implicit  and  passive  obedience  was  due.  Hence,  also, 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  is  a  government  de 
facto,  because  it  was  the  offspring  of  revolution,  and  was 
substituted  in  place  of  a  monarchy.  And  hence,  again,  the 
latter  is  an  illegitimate  government,  borne  with  by  the  pa- 
pal hierarchy  for  a  while,  only  "  from  motives  of  prudence," 


UNITED  STATES  GOVERNMENT  ILLEGITIMATE.      581 

but  subject  to  resistance  and  overthrow,  to  make  room  for 
a  government  dejure^  or  a  legitimate  government,  whenever 
the  interest  and  welfare  of  the  papacy  shall  require  it,  and 
the  result  can  be  made  certain.  It  is  wonderful  how  surely- 
all  Roman  Catholic  authors  and  publicists  who  adopt  the 
Jesuit  or  ultramontane  views  argue  within  such  circles  as 
bring  them  inevitably  to  these  conclusions.  This  author 
shows  that  they  are  the  only  logical  deductions  from  their 
mode  of  reasoning. 

Asking  the  question.  How  far  do  "Catholic  doctrines" 
extend  on  the  subject  of  resistance  to  the  civil  power  "  by 
physical  force  ?"  he  proceeds  at  once  to  combat  and  deny 
the  proposition  that  "obedience  is  due  to  a  government 
from  the  very  fact  of  its  existence."  This  he  calls  unsound 
doctrine,  "  which  is  contrary  to  right  reason,  and  has  never 
been  taught  by  Catholicity."(^'')  Whenever,  according  to 
him,  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  speaks  of  obedience  "to 
the  powers  that  be,"  it  has  reference  to  "  powers  that  have 
a  legitimate  existence."  Why  ?  Because,  says  he,  "  the  ab- 
surdity that  a  simple  fact  can  create  right  can  never  be- 
come a  dogma  of  Catholicity ;"(")  that  is,  the  papacy  asserts 
the  right  to  go  behind  the  fact  that  a  government  exists, 
and  inquire  whether  it  is  or  is  not  legitimate ;  whether,  in 
other  words,  it  is  de  facto  or  de  jure;  and  if  it  is  found  to 
be  de  facto  merely,  it  may  be  resisted,  because  otherwise  it 
would  be  the  concession  to  an  illegitimate  government  of 
"a  right  to  command,"  which  would  be  to  legitimatize  usur- 
pation. (^")  Therefore  he  argues  "that  no  reasonable  man 
can  seriously  accept"  such  a  doctrine  as  that  "of  consum- 
mated facts"  as  applied  to  governments.  Yet,  remembering 
what  he  had  just  said  about  not  resisting  existing  govern- 
ments "  from  motives  of  prudence,"  he  continues : 

"I  do  not  deny  that  there  are  cases  in  which  obedience, 
even  to  an  illegitimate  government,  is  to  be  recommended ; 
when,  for  instance,  we  foresee  that  resistance  would  be  use- 
less, that  it  would  only  lead  to   new  disorders,  and  to  a 


(™)  "Protestantism  and  Catholicity  compared  in  their  Effects  on  the  Civ- 
ilization of  Europe,"  by  Balmes,  ch.  Iv.,  p.  330. 

C')lhid.  r  C')Ibid. 


582  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

greater  effusion  of  blood :  but  in  recommending  prudence 
to  the  people,  let  us  not  disguise  it  under  false  doctrines — 
let  us  beware  of  calming  the  exasperation  of  misfortune  by- 
circulating  errors  subversive  of  all  governments,  of  all  so- 

ciety."('') 

It  is  a  favorite  idea  with  all  the  supporters  of  the  papacy 
— most  persistently  maintained — that  whenever  society  gets 
from  under  the  influence  and  control  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church,  it  necessarily  runs  into  heresy,  infidelity,  anarchy, 
and  all  that  sort  of  thing.  They  repudiate  every  thing  like 
middle  or  conservative  ground,  and  seem  to  be  utterly  un- 
conscious of  their  intolerant  and  partisan  excesses,  as  well 
as  of  the  fact  that  it  is  only  the  progressive  influence  of 
Protestantism  which  has  lifted  the  nations  out  of  the  dark- 
ness and  superstition  into  which  they  were  sunk  during  the 
Middle  Ages.  We  ought  not  to  be  surprised,  therefore,  at 
finding  this  recognized  and  authoritative  propagator  of 
"Catholic  doctrines"  falling  into  this  error,  and  talking 
about  the  subversion  of  all  governments  and  of  all  society, 
whenever  they  refuse  obedience  to  the  pope  and  his  hie- 
rarchy. The  standard  he  sets  up  recognizes  only  Roman 
Catholic  governments  and  society !  —  for  from  them  alone 
does  he  suppose  all  human  advancement  and  prosperity  to 
spring.  All  else  is  evil — and  that  continually.  Yet  he  pru- 
dently recommends  that  this  evil,  terrible  as  it  is  in  its  con- 
sequences both  in  this  life  and  that  which  is  to  come,  be  en- 
dured, wherever  "  resistance  would  be  useless,"  because  such 
resistance  would  be  but  "  the  exasperation  of  misfortune." 
Still,  however,  this  "  prudence  "  must  not  be  practiced  at  the 
expense  of  truth — it  must  not  be  disguised  "under  false 
doctrines " — but  the  true  "  Catholic  doctrines  "  should  be 
proclaimed,  so  that  the  power  shall  be  preserved  by  the  pa- 
pacy to  upturn  and  destroy  all  illegitimate  governments 
whenever  resistance  can  be  successfully  resorted  to,  and  es- 
tablish legitimate  governments  in  their  places !  This  was 
the  real  design  of  the  publication  of  this  book  in  Europe  in 
two  languages ;  a  design  manifestly  sympathized  with,  if 

C^)  "Protestantism  and  Catholicity  compared  in  their  Effects  on  the  Civ- 
ilization of  Europe,"  by  Balmes,  ch.  Iv.,  p.  331. 


PAPAL  GOVERNMENTS  ALONE  LEGAL.      583 

not  openly  avowed,  by  its  American  publishers,  when  they 
professed  to  regard  it  as  having  "  supplied  the  age  with  a 
work  which  is  peculiarly  adapted  to  its  wants."(") 

He  finds  no  difficulty  in  arguing  out  of  the  way  the  Script- 
ural teaching  that  the  civil  authority  must  be  obeyed :  this 
merely  furnishing  him  a  field  for  the  display  of  Jesuit  inge- 
nuity. "Illegitimate  authority,"  says  he,  " is  no  authority 
at  all;"  because  "power  involves  the  idea  of  right,"  and 
where  no  right  exists,  there  is  only  force.  Therefore,  he 
argues,  "  when  the  Scriptures  prescribe  obedience  to  the 
authorities,  it  is  the  lawful  authorities  that  are  implied."(^^) 
Again,  the  kind  of  civil  power  to  which  the  Scriptures  enjoin 
obedience  upon  us  is  that  "  ordained  by  God  himself,"  that 
which  "is  the  minister  of  God  himself,"  which  a  usurped 
and  illegitimate  government  can  never  be,  and  which  none 
but  a  Roman  Catholic  government  can  be !  And,  again, 
the  obedience  to  the  civil  power  prescribed  by  the  Script- 
ures is  the  same  as  that  prescribed  "  to  the  slave  in  relation 
to  his  master ;"  it  exists  only  where  there  is  a  "  legitimate 
dominion."  If  the  slave  is  unjustly  held  in  servitude,  he 
may  rebel  against  the  authority  of  his  master;  but  \^ justly 
held,  he  may  not.  So,  if  the  civil  authorities  be  not  lav}ful 
— that  is, "ordained  by  God  himself" — as  the  pope  shall  de- 
clare his  law — no  obedience  to  them  is  required,  except  that 
"  which  prudence  would  dictate  ;"  and  they  must,  therefore, 
be  endured  as  a  "  misfortune  "  until  resistance  can  be  made 
successful!  Whatever  process  of  reasoning  he  adopts,  he 
reaches  always  the  same  conclusion.  He  keeps  always  with- 
in his  prescribed  circle ;  but,  whether  it  be  large  or  small,  he 
never  fails  to  terminate  at  the  point  most  prominently  be- 
fore him,  and  most  indelibly  fixed  upon  his  mind — the  ille- 
gitimacy of  all  governments  not  based  upon  the  divine  law 
— meaning,  of  course,  the  divine  law  as  the  infallible  pope 
shall  declare  it ! 

Conscious  of  the  opposition  to  these  "  Catholic  doctrines  " 
of  the  practice  of  the  early  Christians,  who  always  submitted 


(^*)  "Protestantism  and  Catholicity  compared  in  their  Effects  on  the  Civ- 
ilization of  Europe,"  by  Balmes,  Preface  to  American  edition,  p.  v. 
C^)/6iU,ch.  lv.,p.  332. 


584  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

to  the  ruling  authority  of  the  Government  without  concern- 
ing themselves  about  the  temporal  power,  he  endeavors  to 
point  out  the  "  futility  "  of  their  position,  by  insisting  upon 
a  distinction  between  the  state  of  things  existing  then  and 
that  existing  in  our  day.  In  these  early  centuries,  accord- 
ing to  him,  "  all  that  upright  men  could  do  was  quietly  to 
resign  themselves  to  the  calamitous  circumstances  of  the 
times,  and  by  fervent  prayer  to  implore  the  Almighty  to 
take  compassion  on  mankind."(^'')  But  now,  since  the  num- 
ber of  Christians  has  increased  so  that  they  have  become  a 
controlling  power  in  the  world;  since  they  have,  in  many 
instances,  overturned  governments,  and  may  do  so  again 
whenever  circumstances  make  it  prudent  to  attempt  it,  he 
admonishes  the  faithful  adherents  of  the  papal  cause  to  hus- 
band their  resources,  and  submit  prudently,  for  a  while,  to 
illegitimate  rule ;  but,  in  the  mean  time,  to  prepare  to  strike 
when  the  proper  hour  shall  arrive  !  He  cautions  them,  first, 
to  be  sure  that  the  government  at  which  they  strike  is  ille- 
gitimate— a  question  which  now,  since  the  dogma  of  infalli- 
bility, belongs  to  the  pope  alone  to  decide.  Then,  second, 
they  should  have  in  view  the  substitution  of  a  lawful  power, 
which,  of  course,  the  pope  also  decides.  And,  third,  they 
"  should  count  besides  on  the  probability  of  the  success  of 
their  enterprise;"  a  matter  which  involves  prudential  con- 
siderations alone.  In  the  absence  of  "these  conditions," 
there  would  be  "no  object"  accomplished;  it  would  be  "a 
mere  fruitless  attempt,  an  impotent  revenge ;"  it  would  only 
cause  "bloodshed,"  only  incense  and  "irritate  the  power  at- 
tacked," and  have  no  other  result  than  "  to  increase  oppres- 
sion and  tyranny."(") 

An  Archbishop  of  Palmyra  had  published  a  work  upon 
the  Church  Militant,  in  which  he  maintained  that  when 
Christ  commanded  his  followers  to  "  render  to  Caesar  the 
things  that  are  Caesar's,"  he  meant  "that  the  mere  fact  of  a 
government's  existence  is  sufficient  for  enforcing  the  obedi- 
ence of  the  subjects  to  it;"  that  is,  he  established  the  doc- 

C^)  "Protestantism  and  Catholicity  compared  in  their  Effects  on  the  Civ- 
ilization of  Europe,"  by  Balmes,  ch.  Iv.,  p.  332. 
(")i6ic/.,ch.  lv.,p.332. 


THE  RIGHT  OF  REVOLUTION  CONDEMNED.  585 

trine  "  of  consummated  facts."  But  this  he  calls  a  "  fallacy," 
and  declares  that  this  work  of  the  archbishop  "  was  forbid- 
den at  Rome"  by  the  "Sacred  Congregation  !"  a  decree,  he 
says,  in  which  "every  man  who  is  jealous  of  his  rights" — that 
is,  all  the  defenders  of  papal  infallibility— will  acquiesce. ('') 
Keeping  in  mind  his  prudential  argument,  and  suggesting 
that  "the  interference  of  Christians  in  political  disputes" 
would  only  bring  their  holy  religion  into  disrepute,  in  the 
event  that  they  should  fail  of  success,  he  surmounts  the  dif- 
ficulty arising  out  of  "  consummated  facts  "  by  repeating  his 
argument  that  they  must  be  legally  consummated  before  the 
obligation  of  obedience  can  arise  out  of  them.  And  then, 
by  way  of  a  practical  application  of  these  "  Catholic  doc- 
trines," he  continues : 

"  Hence,  in  a  political  and  social  sense,  we  designate  con- 
summated facts  a  usurpation,  completely  overthrowing  the 
legitimate  power,  and  by  means  of  which  the  usurper  is  al- 
ready substituted  in  its  place;  a  measure  executed  in  all  its 
points.  Such  is  the  suppression  of  the  regular  clergy  in  Spain, 
and  the  confiscation  of  their  property  to  the  treasury ;  a  rev- 
olution which  has  been  triumphant,  and  which  has  entirely 
disposed  of  a  country,  as  was  the  case  with  our  American 
possessions."(^^) 

This  is  the  culmination  of  this  distinguished  author's  the- 
ory—of the  "  Catholic  doctrines"  of  which  he  is  the  able  and 
eloquent  expounder.  It  reaches  the  point  to  which  every 
thing  is  now  pressed  by  the  defenders  of  papal  infallibility 
— that  is,  to  the  point  of  revolution.  Recognizing  no  other 
form  of  government  except  the  monarchical  as  consistent 
with  the  divine  law.  Pope  Pius  IX.  and  his  hierarchy  do  not 
hesitate  to  declare,  in  the  face  of  the  world's  progress,  that 
every  other  form  of  government  is  revolutionary  and  usur- 
pation. Therefore  these  "  Catholic  doctrines"  are  put  forth 
by  one  of  the  most  eloquent  men  in  the  Church,  to  show  that 
all  revolutionary  governments  are  unlawful,  and  that  al- 
though prudence  may  dictate  obedience  to  them  for  a  sea- 


f^)  "Protestantism  and  Catholicity  compared  in  their  Effects  on  the  Civ- 
ilization of  Europe,"  by  Balmes,  ch.  Iv.,  p.  333. 
O /6iW.,ch.lv.,p/334:. 


686  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

son,  yet  that,  as  they  confer  no  right  whatever,  they  may  be 
destroyed,  and  lawful  governments  erected  in  their  places 
whenever  it  can  be  done  without  the  infliction  of  too  much 
harm  upon  the  attacking  party !  And  therefore,  in  order 
that  the  prudential  submission  to  a  revolutionary  govern- 
ment for  the  present  may  not  be  disguised  "  under  false  doc- 
trines," the  teachings  of  this  author  are  translated  into  En- 
glish, published  in  the  United  States,  and  circulated  among 
our  Roman  Catholic  population,  avowedly  upon  the  ground 
that  they  are  "  peculiarly  adapted  "  to  the  wants  of  the  pres- 
ent age ! 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  had  its  origin  in  rev- 
olution. Our  fathers  cut  with  the  sword  the  cord  which  had 
bound  the  American  colonies  to  one  of  the  monarchies  of  Eu- 
rope. Believing  their  cause  to  be  just,  they  appealed  to  God 
for  the  protection  of  his  providence,  and  we  believe  that  they 
won  their  success  under  that  protection.  They  snatched  liber- 
ty— civil  and  religious— from  those  princes  of  the  Old  World 
who  had  managed  to  keep  their  feet  upon  the  necks  of  all 
who  desired  to  enjoy  it,  and  thus  elevated  the  inhabitants  of 
this  country  to  a  condition  of  prosperity  and  happiness  which 
has  no  parallel  in  all  the  ages  of  the  past.  They  built  up  a 
government  which  secures,  in  a  higher  degree  than  any  other 
government  on  earth,  all  the  rights  and  immunities  of  citi- 
zenship. They  recognized  the  common  brotherhood  of  man, 
and  opened  their  arms  to  the  oppressed,  persecuted,  and 
down-trodden  of  the  world,  inviting  them  to  come  and  share 
with  them  the  blessings  of  free  and  popular  institutions. 
Millions  of  them,  who  were  the  slaves  of  political  and  eccle- 
siastical tyranny  in  the  countries  of  their  birth,  are  now  in 
this  country,  and  have  already  experienced  the  improvement 
of  their  condition — have  acquired  a  new  and  more  invigor- 
ating manhood.  Of  these  there  are  thousands  who  love  our 
Government  with  fervid  intensity  —  who  have  defended  its 
honor  and  its  flag  when  they  have  been  attacked,  and  are 
ready  to  do  so  again,  to  the  very  death,  if  necessary.  But 
there  are  others — no  matter  whether  they  may  be  counted 
by  hundreds  or  thousands — who  accept,  with  seeming  acqui- 
escence, the  idea  that  they  shall  subordinate  their  patriotism 
to  the  Government  to  their  devotion  to  the  papacy  ;  and  who 


CHURCH  AND  STATE  BOTH  FREE.  587 

appear  content  to  be  recognized  as  maintaining,  with  their 
hierarchy,  that  the  Church  is  higher  and  more  potent  than 
the  State  —  even  within  the  constitutional  domain  of  the 
State.  They  are  invited,  by  the  most  earnest  and  pathetic 
appeals,  to  love  the  Church  first,  the  State  second,  and  then 
only  as  the  Church  shall  decree;  and  to  merge  their  respon- 
sibility to  the  laws  in  their  responsibility  to  the  pope. 

The  laws  of  this  country  do  not  interfere  with  the  religion 
of  any  of  these ;  nor  can  they  do  so.  They  leave  each  indi- 
vidual conscience  free,  so  that  the  citizen  shall  act  upon  his 
own  responsibility  to  God.  All  our  Protestant  institutions 
assume  that  each  of  us  may  enjoy  a  pure  Christian  faith 
without  ingrafting  upon  it  any  of  the  principles  of  civil  pol- 
ity which  are  confided  to  the  State.  They  will  not  allow  the 
State  to  invade  the  rightful  jurisdiction  of  the  Church,  and 
declare  what  the  faith  shall  be  ;  nor  will  they  submit  to  any 
impairment  of  the  legitimate  functions  of  the  State  by  the 
Church.  The  line  which  separates  these  jurisdictions  can 
not  be  obliterated  without  marring  the  beauty  of  the  one 
and  assailing  the  integrity  of  the  other.  The  Church  and 
State  must  be  kept  apart — each  in  its  own  proper  sphere. 

Therefore,  our  Roman  Catholic  fellow-citizens,  for  them- 
selves as  well  as  Protestants,  have  the  deepest  interest  in 
having  these  questions  properly  and  satisfactorily  solved: 
What  is  the  design  of  those  hierarchs  who  claim  to  be  their 
sole  and  exclusive  teachers,  no  less  in  the  domain  of  social 
and  political  morality  than  in  that  of  religious  faith  ?  Are 
they  endeavoring  to  extend  their  spiritual  jurisdiction  be- 
yond the  limits  fixed  by  our  laws,  and  to  trench  upon  the 
civil  jurisdiction  as  marked  out  and  defined?  Does  the 
pope  claim  for  himself  a  jurisdiction  over  them,  as  citizens, 
superior  to  and  above  that  of  the  State?  Does  he  or  not 
recognize  as  a  legitimate  fact  our  separation  of  Church  and 
State?  Does  he  expect  of  them  to  resist  those  principles  of 
our  Government  which  he  shall  declare  to  be  contrary  to 
God's  law,  or  against  the  welfare  and  interest  of  the  Church? 
Does  he  demand  of  them,  by  virtue  of  his  asserted  infallibil- 
ity, to  enlarge  the  circle  of  their  religious  faith,  so  as  to  in- 
clude within  it  any  of  the  essential  principles  of  our  civil 
polity  ?    Does  he  require  them,  as  any  part  of  their  religion. 


688  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

to  test  their  obedience  to  our  laws  by  their  conformity  to 
the  Constitution,  or  to  his  will  ?  Which  does  he  command 
them  to  obey,  the  civil  laws  of  the  State  or  the  canon  laws 
of  the  Church,  in  case  of  conflict  between  them?  Which  al- 
legiance does  he  consider  the  highest,  that  which  they  owe 
to  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  or  that  which  they 
owe  to  the  ecclesiastical  government  constructed  by  the  Ro- 
man pontiffs?  In  so  far  as  the  pope  is  concerned,  every  in- 
telligent man  who  has  taken  the  trouble  to  investigate  un- 
derstands the  answers  to  all  these  questions.  In  so  far  as 
they  are  concerned,  the  time  has  come  when  they  can  no 
longer  defer  to  answer  them  for  themselves. 


DOCTRINES  OF  THE  JESUITS.  589 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

The  Rights  of  the  Papacy  not  lost  by  Revolution. — No  Legitimate  Right 
acquired  by  it. — Revolutions  always  Iniquitous. — Christopher  Columbus. 
— He  takes  Possession  of  the  New  World  in  the  Name  of  the  Church  of 
Rome. — He  thereby  expands  its  Domain. — The  Popes  claim  Jurisdic- 
tion in  Consequence. — Illegitimate  Power  obtained  by  Revolution  can  not 
destroy  this  Right  of  Jurisdiction. — Exercise  of  the  Power  in  England  by 
Alexander  II.,  and  in  Germany  by  Gregory  VII. — Defense  of  Gregory 
VII. — Direct  and  Indirect  Power. — Doctrine  asserted  by  Peter  Dens. — 
Bellarmine  the  Author  of  the  Theory  of  Indirect  Power. — Doctrine  of  St. 
Thomas. — That  of  Cardinal  D'Ostia. — Infidels  can  have  no  Just  Title  to 
Governments. — The  Pope  may  dispose  of  Them. — Gregory  III.,  Stephen 
II.,  and  Leo  III.  all  justified. — Also  Gregory  VII.,  Innocent  III.,  Adrian 
IV.,  and  Boniface  VIII. — The  Late  Lateran  Council  makes  them  all  In- 
fallible.—  They  claim  the  Direct  Power.  —  The  Doctrine  of  Indirect 
Power  an  After-thought  in  Answer  to  the  Objection  of  Protestants. — The 
Papal  Jurisdiction  in  America  the  Same  under  Either. — Alexander  VI. 
divides  America  between  Spain  and  Portugal. — Resumption  of  this  Au- 
thority defended  by  Jesuits. — Obedience  to  Governments  de  facto  not  en- 
joined by  the  Church  of  Rome. — Effect  of  this  Doctrine  upon  the  Oath 
of  Allegiance. — Doctrine  of  "Mental  Restrictions,"  and  "Ambiguity  and 
Equivocation"  in  Oaths. — Jesuit  Teachings  on  this  Subject. — The  Object 
of  the  Second  Council  of  Baltimore  to  introduce  the  Canon  Law. — What 
it  is. — Its  Effect  if  introduced  in  the  United  States. — Punishment  of  Her- 
etics.— Extirpation  of  Infidelity. — Heretics  rightfully  punished  with  Death. 
— All  Baptized  Protestants  are  Subjects  of  the  Pope. — May  all  be  right- 
fully punished  for  Disobedience. 

The  author  of  "  Protestantism  and  Catholicity  Compared 
in  their  Effects  on  the  Civilization  of  Europe  "  must  be  fol- 
lowed still  further,  in  order  that  the  full  import  of  his  teach- 
ings may  be  understood.  His  eminent  ability,  and  his  dis- 
tinction as  an  expositor  of  the  true  faith  in  so  far  as  it  in- 
volves the  dealings  of  the  papacy  with  the  nations,  give  an 
unusual  degree  of  prominence  and  importance  to  what  he 
says. 

Assuming,  as  his  premise,  that  the  "American  posses- 
sions "  of  Spain  were  separated  from  <ihe  mother  country  by 


690  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

"  usurpation,"  and  that  thereby  illegitimate  was  substituted 
for  legitimate  authority,  he  reaches  the  next  step  in  his  ar- 
gument, as  a  logical  conclusion  :  that  the  new  government 
thus  formed  can  impose  no  absolute  obligation  of  allegiance 
— it  may  be  submitted  to  as  a  measure  of  prudence,  but  not 
obeyed  on  the  ground  of  right.  Manifestly  he  had  a  twofold 
meaning:  first,  to  assert  the  existing  right  of  Spain  to  retake 
possession  of  such  portions  of  America  as  she  had  lost  by 
revolution;  and,  second,  the  right  of  the  papacy,  also  subsist- 
ing, to  re-assert  and  maintain  the  spiritual  jurisdiction  and 
authority  it  once  exercised  in  America.  The  application  of 
this  doctrine  designed  by  him  is  readily  seen.  Mexico  sun- 
dered her  allegiance  from  Spain,  as  the  United  States  did 
theirs  from  Great  Britain.  In  both  cases  new  governments 
were  established  and  became  "consummated  facts" — so  rec- 
ognized by  other  governments.  But,  in  his  view,  these  new 
governments  became  "  usurpations  "  by  the  fact  that  they 
were  the  result  of  illegitimate,  or  revolutionary,  resistance 
to  legitimate  authority.  To  such  governments  he  does  not 
consider  any  obedience  due,  as  of  right ;  because,  says  he,  a 
government  which  has  "  abolished  legitimate  rights  can  not 
justify  its  acts  by  the  simple  fact  of  its  having  sufficient 
strength  to  execute  these  iniquities.'''' i^)  Therefore,  accord- 
ing to  the  "Catholic  doctrines"  as  announced  by  him,  the 
rights  of  Spain  and  Great  Britain  in  America  are  in  no  way 
legitimately  impaired  by  consummated  acts  of  revolution- 
ary resistance;  but  remain  intact — as  complete  and  perfect 
as  they  were  before  the  revolutions  began.  Therefore,  also, 
Mexico  belongs,  rightfully  and  legitimately,  to  the  old  Span- 
ish monarchy,  under  its  old  de-jure  form  of  government,  and 
the  United  States  to  Great  Britain ;  subject,  of  course,  in 
both  cases,  to  the  papal  claim  of  primacy  and  superior  right, 
recognized  by  both  countries  when  they  had  the  legitimate 
right  to  do  so.  Neither  Mexico  nor  the  United  States  has 
acquired  any  legitimate  and  valid  right,  as  against  the  legit- 
imate authority  they  defied,  or  as  against  the  papacy,  right- 
fully acknowledged   by  that    authority,   by  reason    of  the 


C)  Balmes,  p.  334. 


OATH  OF  ALLEGIANCE  NOT  BINDING.  591 

the  iniquitous  purpose  of  establishing  revolutionary  govern- 
ments. Hence,  he  reasons  that,  as  the  original  obligation  of 
obedience  to  the  old  monarchies — the  only  form  of  govern- 
ment which  he  considers  as  known  to  the  divine  law — has 
not  been  impaired  by  "  these  iniquities  "  or  "  consummated 
facts,"  and  can  not  be  impaired  by  the  substitution  of  new 
and  illegitimate  allegiance  for  it,  the  papacy,  as  the  repre- 
sentative and  divinely  appointed  guardian  of  the  monarchic- 
al power,  has  the  legitimate  right  to  sweep  out  of  existence, 
whenever  it  shall  become  prudent  to  attempt  it,  every  thing 
that  shall  stand  in  the  way  of  this  original  and  primary  obe- 
dience. And  hence,  also,  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  Uni- 
ted States,  with  those  who  accept  the  doctrine  of  papal  in- 
fallibility, has  no  other  than  a  temporary  binding  force,  be- 
cause, being  illegitimate  and  unjust,  it  is  perjury,  and  no 
oath  at  all ! 

Thus  always  reasons  the  papal  monarchist,  who  invariably 
argues  so  as  to  make  every  thing  centre  in  the  proposition 
that  the  bulk  of  mankind  are  fit  only  to  be  governed  —  not 
to  govern.  He  and  the  political  monarchist  start  from  this 
same  stand-point.  They  do  not  differ  in  their  process  of  rea- 
soning, except  in  this:  that  the  former  never  fails  to  concen- 
trate every  thing  in  the  papacy  as  the  legitimate  source  of 
all  power,  because  it  is  the  only  authorized  interpreter  of  the 
divine  law,  to  which  all  mankind  must  become  subject ;  and 
is  sufficiently  comprehensive  to  include  the  temporal  or  civil 
power,  as  the  greater  includes  the  lesser. 

Those  who  defend  the  claim  of  papal  supremacy  in  this 
sense  see,  or  pretend  to  see,  in  the  discovery  of  America  by 
Columbus,  the  act  of  God  consummated  only  through  the  in- 
strumentality of  the  Roman  Church,  specially  chosen  for  that 
purpose.  They  have  always  considered  this  fact  as  having 
conferred  jurisdiction  upon  the  pope  to  govern  the  new  con- 
tinent *in  whatsoever  concerns  the  faith  and  the  divine  law — 
including,  necessarily,  in  their  view  such  direction  of  tempo- 
ral affjiirs  as  is  required  to  make  them  conform  to  that  law. 
These  ideas,  somewhat  remitted  heretofore  from  necessity 
and  prudence,  have  acquired  additional  strength  from  the 
dogma  of  papal  infallibility.  They  are  now  avowed  with 
great  emphasis  and  vehemence  by  the  ultramontane  author- 


692  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

ities  at  Rome,  who  are,  seemingly,  the  more  pertinacious  in 
their  advocacy  in  proportion  to  the  resistance  of  them  by  the 
progressive  nations. 

A  new  life  of  Columbus  has  lately  appeared.  It  was  writ- 
ten in  French  by  De  Lorgues,  but  has  been  translated,  and 
published  in  this  country.  Any  one  who  will  carefully  read 
this  book  will  see  that  one  design  of  it  is  the  inculcation  of 
the  idea  of  papal  supremacy  in  America.  Speaking  of  the 
preparation  of  Columbus  for  his  work  of  discovery,  by  pen- 
ance, prayer,  and  the  meditation  of  divine  things,  the  author 
says : 

"  His  expedition  takes  the  religious  character  of  its  origin 
and  object :  he  gives  the  name  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  to  his 
ship,  and  hoists  the  cross  in  her;  he  departs  on  a  Friday, 
and  commands  the  sails  to  be  unfurled  in  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ. 

"It  is  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  that  he  takes  posses- 
sion of  the  lands  he  discovers.  It  is  to  honor  the  Redeemer 
that  he  erects  crosses  everywhere  he  lands."Q 

He  is  described,  not  only  as  the  first  who  carried  the  cross 
to  the  New  World,  but  as  "  the  herald  of  Catholicity,  and  the 
tacit  mandatory  of  the  papac}\"(^)  It  is  said  that  "he  pre- 
sents the  Holy  See  with  an  opportunity,  or  occasion,  of  show- 
ing the  spirit  of  infaUihle  sagacity  that  perpetually  inspires 
the  Church,  etc."(*)  Events  are  recited  to  establish  for  him 
"  the  character  of  apostolic  legate,  with  which  he  showed 
himself  invested  in  his  acts  and  by  his  intentions."(^)  It  is 
declared  that  "  evidently  God  chose  Christopher  Columbus 
as  a  messenger  of  salvation. "(^)  And  treating  the  discov- 
ery of  America  as  a  fact  accomplished  in  accordance  with 
the  divine  decree,  it  is  said  that  by  means  of  it  he  "  enlarges 
the  known  surface  of  the  earth,  brings  nations,  as  it  were, 
nearer  each  other,  and  expands  the  domain  of  the  Catholic 
Church.'''' i^)  He  is  called  a  saint,  even  without  canonization, 
because,  as  "  a  hero  of  the  Gospel "  and  "  a  great  servant  of 
the  Church,"  the  "messenger  of  the  cross  is  found,  as  re- 


O  "  Life  of  Christopher  Columbus,"  translated  by  Dr.  Barry,  p.  570. 
(«)  Ihid.,  p.  571.  O  Ibid.  C)  Ibid.,  p.  573. 

C)  Ibid.  C)  Ibid.,  p.  590. 


COLUMBUS  THE  LEGATE  OF  THE  POPE.      593 

gards  history,"  in  him.(^)  And,  finally,  in  assigning  the  dis- 
covery to  "  the  infallible  wisdom  of  the  Church,"  he  sums  up 
by  saying  that  "  the  history  of  Columbus  contains  the  glori- 
fication of  the  Catholic  Church ;  it  shows  the  spirit  of  light 
which  always  guides  the  papacy  in  the  government  of  in- 
telligence ;"(^)  which  assigns  all  the  honor  and  glory  of  the 
discovery  to  the  papacy  alone,  and  treats  the  agency  of  Fer- 
dinand and  Isabella  as  merely  secondary  to  it. 

The  papist  who  by  this  process  of  reasoning  argues  himself 
into  the  belief  that  this  enlargement  of  "  the  domain  of  the 
Catholic  Church"  conferred  higher  jurisdiction  upon  the  pa- 
pacy than  that  acquired  by  Ferdinand  and  Isabella  by  virtue 
of  the  right  of  discovery  and  the  law  of  nations,  because  the 
papal  rights  were  divine,  and  the  royal  rights  human  only, has 
no  difiiculty  in  reaching  the  conclusion  that  the  pope  obtain- 
ed by  means  of  it  a  degree  of  authority  within  the  new  "  do- 
main "  which  can  not  be  impaired  by  the  employment  of  il- 
legitimate power,  or  a  resort  to  revolution  and  usurpation, 
which  with  him  are  convertible  terms.  Undoubtedly,  the 
popes  have  thus  reasoned  in  reference  to  the  jurisdiction  they 
acquired  over  all  nations  once  submitting  to  their  authority ; 
and  when  this  jurisdiction  has  been  suspended  or  disturbed 
for  a  time  by  forces  they  could  not  resist,  they  have  not  hes- 
itated to  re-assert  it  when  occasion  offered,  and  to  insist  upon 
resuming  it  when  these  forces  were  overcome  or  withdrawn. 
They  have  maintained  that  neither  time  nor  circumstances, 
of  whatsoever  nature,  could  operate  in  bar  or  limitation  of 
their  right,  for  the  reason  that  it  is  derived  from  God ;  and 
that,  therefore,  every  thing  in  conflict  with  it  is  wrong  and 
usurpation.  They  have  never  been  known  to  abandon  any 
jurisdiction,  and  the  rights  arising  out  of  it,  exercised  by 
them  over  any  nation,  however  remote  may  have  been  the 
period  of  its  exercise.  In  the  case  of  Great  Britain,  for  ex- 
ample, their  theory  supports,  and  in  their  view  justifies,  the 
claim  that  as  Gregory  I.  introduced  the  Roman  faith  there, 
and  the  early  Saxon  kings  became  converts  to  it  and  submit- 
ted to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  pope,  and  other  kings  did  the 


C)  "Life  of  Christopher  Columbus,"  translated  by  Dr.  Barry,  p.  596. 
0/6/d,p.616. 

38 


594  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

same  thing,  especially  John,  who  consented  to  hold  the  crown 
and  country  as  a  fief  of  the  pope,  therefore  they  acquired  a 
spiritual  supremacy  there,  which,  whatsoever  "  consummated 
facts"  may  have  since  transpired,  has  lost  none  of  its  origi- 
nal validity  or  legitimacy.  They  do  not  acknowledge  that 
the  statute  of  limitations  or  any  analogous  principle  of  the 
law  of  nations  can  run  against  the  papal  rights  over  either 
nations  or  individuals,  because  they  have  the  stamp  of  the 
divine  sanction.  Their  reasoning  is  based  upon  the  ideas 
that  Christ  intrusted  to  them  the  keys,  giving  to  them 
thereby  the  power  to  bind  and  loose  in  heaven  and  upon 
earth ;  that  this  power  is  necessarily  plenary,  and  confers 
upon  them  the  right  of  spiritual  government  over  all  na- 
tions and  peoples  brought  under  the  influence  of  Christian- 
ity. The  extraordinary  nature  of  this  claim  is  not  more 
startling  than  the  manner  of  its  exercise,  whenever  there 
have  not  been  sufficient  means  of  repelling  it.  Examples  al- 
ready referred  to  in  a  diflferent  connection,  as  illustrating 
other  aspects  of  the  papal  question,  bear  directly  on  this 
point. 

It  was  by  virtue  of  this  jurisdiction  that  Alexander  II. 
blessed  the  banner  of  William  the  Conqueror,  and  gave  him 
pontifical  permission  to  dispossess  Harold,  the  legitimate 
King  of  Great  Britain,  and  occupy  the  country  in  the  name 
of  the  papacy.  In  support  of  it,  he  and  his  successors  sent 
an  army  of  legates  and  Italian  monks  into  the  country,  in  or- 
der to  extend  the  pontifical  dominion,  and,  according  to  the 
historian, "  they  carved  and  clipped  ecclesiastical  matters  as 
they  pleased."('") 

It  was  under  the  same  claim  of  authority  that  Gregory 
VII.  pronounced  his  anathemas  against  the  Emperor  Henry 
IV.,  and  stirred  up  against  him  an  insurrection  in  favor  of 
Rudolph,  without  any  regard  to  the  wishes  or  desires  of  the 
German  people.  And  the  papists,  not  being  disposed  to  at- 
tempt a  direct  justification  of  his  enormous  pretensions,  in 
an  age  of  so  much  enlightenment  as  the  present,  have  resort- 
ed to  various  subterfuges  to  escape  the  consequences  of  his 
bold  and  defiant  demands. 

O  Rapin. 


DIEECT  AND  INDIRECT  POWER.  595 

An  effort  has  been  made  by  a  learned  papal  writer — which 
has  the  merit  of  great  ability — to  show  that  Gregory  VII. 
"did  not  pretend  to  ground  himself  merely  on  the  divine  pow- 
er of  binding  and  loosing,  but  on  the  laws  both  of  God  and 
man."(")  He  does  not  by  any  means  make  this  clear.  On 
the  contrary,  his  shifting  of  position  merely  suggests  the  im- 
possibility of  drawing  the  line,  in  ascertaining  the  extent  of 
papal  power,  between  the  laws  of  God  and  those  of  man  ;  for 
if  the  power  is  divine  in  any  sense,  it  must  be  plenary,  and 
not  dependent  upon  human  consent.  Bellarmine,  with  more 
ability,  called  it  indirect  power  —  distinguishing  it  from  di- 
rect; the  ground  also  taken  by  Cardinal  Antonelli  in  his 
letter  to  the  French  embassador,  heretofore  alluded  to.  {") 
What  is  meant  by  this,  however,  is  that  in  the  Papal  States 
the  power  of  the  pope  is  direct,  whereas  outside  their  limits, 
and  elsewhere  throughout  the  world,  it  is  indirect.  But  there 
is  no  difference  in  degree,  it  being  the  same  wherever  it  ex- 
ists. Thus  we  find  it  laid  down  by  Peter  Dens  in  these 
words : 

"Bellarmine,  Sylvius,  and  others  say  that  the  pope  has 
not  by  divine  right  direct  power  over  temporal  kingdoms, 
but  indirect;  that  is,  when  the  spiritual  power  can  not  be 
freely  exercised,  nor  his  object  be  attained  by  spiritual,  then 
he  may  have  resource  to  temporal  means,  according  to  St. 
Thomas,  22,  q.  10,  a.  12,  et  q.  12,  a.  2,  who  teaches  that  princes 
may  sometimes  be  deprived  of  their  rule,  and  their  subjects 
be  liberated  from  the  oath  of  fidelity ;  and  thus  it  has  been 
done  by  pontiffs  more  than  once."(^^) 

The  Jesuit  Bellarmine  is  supposed  to  be  the  author  of  this 
doctrine ;  but  as  he  lived  in  the  sixteenth  century — five  hun- 

(")  "The  Power  of  the  Pope  in  the  Middle  Ages,"  by  Gosselin,  vol.  ii., 
p.  106. 

C")  Ante. 

(")  "  Bellarminus,  Sylvius,  aliiqne  diciint  Pontificem  non  habere  jure  di- 
vino  potestatem  directam  in  temporalia  regna,  sed  indirectam ;  hoc  est, 
quando  potestas  spiritualis  exerceri  libere  non  potest,  nee  suum  finem  asse- 
qui  per  media  spiritualia,  tunc  ad  temporalia  recurrere  possit,  juxta  S.  Thom. 
22,  q.  10,  a.  12,  et  q.  12,  a.  2,  qui  docet  Principes  interdum  privari  posse  domi- 
natione  et  subditos  a  fidelitatis  juramento  liberari ;  et  ita  k  Pontificibus  non 
semel  est  practicatum." — Theologia  Moralis  et  Dogmatica,  by  Dens,  vol.  ii., 
No.  98,  p.  164.  \       ' 


596  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

dred  years  after  Gregory  VII.  —  the  latter,  of  course,  had  no 
idea  of  any  other  than  the  direct  power,  and  being  an  infalli- 
ble pope,  the  opinions  of  a  mere  cardinal,however  distinguish- 
ed, can  not  be  set  up  against  his.  Nor  do  they  avail  much 
against  the  opinions  of  St.  Thomas,  who  is  regarded  as  one 
of  the  foremost  of  the  fathers.  As  represented  by  Dens,  St. 
Thomas  merely  refers  to  the  exercise,  but  not  to  the  origin, 
of  the  power.  When,  however,  he  does  refer  to  the  origin 
of  it,  he  says,  "  that  according  to  the  institution  of  God  him- 
self, the  King  of  kings,  the  pope  possesses  the  highest  degree 
of  both  powers,  the  spiritual  and  the  temporaV^ (^*)  And 
Cardinal  D'  Ostia  makes  a  more  practical  application  of  the 
doctrine  when  he  asserts  that  "  since  the  coming  of  Jesus 
Christ  all  the  dominion  of  infidel  princes  was  transferred  to 
the  Church,  and  is  vested  in  the  pope  as  the  vicar  of  Jesus 
Christ,  the  King  of  kings ;  whence  he  infers  that  the  pope 
can,  bi/  his  own  authority^  grant  the  kingdoms  of  infidel 
princes  to  any  of  the  faithful  whom  he  may  think  proper  to 
select."('^)  But  although  St.  Thomas  sustains  the  direct 
and  Bellarmine  the  indirect  power,  they  agree  in  its  appli- 
cation according  to  the  principle  laid  down  by  D'  Ostia.  In 
justifying  Popes  Gregory  III.,  Stephen  III.,  and  Leo  III.  in 
seizing  upon  a  number  of  Italian  provinces  after  the  emper- 
ors of  the  East  had  separated  from  the  Roman  Church  and 
united  with  the  Eastern  Christians — thus  becoming  heretics 
— they  both  "  maintain  that  the  Church  and  the  pope  could 
have  declared  the  pagan  emperors  of  Rome,  and  especially 
Z\x\\2Ln^  deposed  from  the  empii^e,  and  their  subjects  absolved 
from  all  obligation  toward  them^  if  such  a  declaration  had 
been  consistent  with  prudence.''^")  The  fact  is,  this  theory 
of  indirect  power  is  an  after -thought.  It  had  no  existence 
in  the  minds  of  the  ambitious  popes  who  laid  the  foundation 
of  papal  power,  and  under  whose  administrations  that  pow- 
er was  made  to  overshadow  the  world.  With  them — Grego- 
ry VII.,  Innocent  III.,  Adrian  IV.,  Boniface  VIII. ,  and  all  the 
rest  —  the  pontifical  power  was  direct,  full,  plenary,  omnip- 
otent, derived  immediately  from  God.     They  denied  that  it 

(")  Gosselin,  vol.  ii.,  p.  365,  and  note.  O  Ibid.,  p.  362. 

n  Ibid.,  ^.3G7. 


BELLARMINE  AND  ANTONELLI.  597 

was  in  any  sense  indebted  to  human  grants  or  concessions, 
or  that  it  could  be  enlarged  or  diminished  by  them.  When, 
however,  Protestantism  began  its  work,  and  the  papacy  reel- 
ed and  tottered  under  the  blows  of  the  great  Reformers,  it 
required  the  genius  and  ability  of  Bellarmine  to  conceive 
and  promulgate  the  idea  of  indirect  power,  so  that  the  as* 
sailants  of  the  direct  power  might  be  answered  with  an  ar- 
gument that  was  at  least  plausible.  It  is  said  that  he  was 
"  driven  to  the  theory  of  the  indirect  power  by  the  desire 
of  vindicating  the  popes  and  clergy  of  the  Middle  Ages 
against  the  attacks  of  Protestants  and  of  the  more  ancient 
heretics,"  and  that  he  "  believed  that  he  struck  the  middle 
and  proper  course,  between  the  excesses  of  heresy  and  the 
opinion  of  the  direct  power,  which  he  considered  to  be  man- 
ifestly extravagant."  ('^) 

If  the  great  popes  who  originated,  maintained,  and  acted 
upon  the  doctrine  of  the  direct  power  were  infallible — and 
the  dogma  of  the  late  Lateran  Council  makes  them  so — then 
this  doctrine  became  an  essential  part  of  the  faith  of  the 
Church,  which  it  would  now  be  heresy  to  deny  or  change. 
It  is  a  vain  pretense,  therefore,  to  talk  about  the  indirect 
power,  as  Cardinal  Antonelli  does,  it  being  merely  the  in- 
genious argument  of  a  Jesuit  of  the  sixteenth  century,  not 
promulgated  by  authority  as  a  part  of  the  faith,  but  as  a 
mere  shelter  for  the  enormities  practiced  under  the  claim  of 
direct  power.  If  it  be  that  the  faith  of  the  Church  is  im- 
mutable, and  the  popes  all  infallible  and  incapable  of  error, 
then  the  doctrine  of  the  indirect  power  is  heresy.  Or,  if  the 
promulgation  of  it  from  the  Vatican,  under  the  official  au- 
spices of  the  present  pope,  makes  it  a  necessary  part  of  the 
faith  at  this  time,  then  the  popes  who  maintained  the  direct 
power  were  heretics.  Let  the  papist  take  either  horn  of 
the  dilemma,  and  his  theory  falls  to  the  ground  as  utterly 
untenable,  alike  opposed  to  the  divine  and  human  law  and 
the  best  interests  of  mankind. 

It  is  apparent,  therefore,  that  Gregory  YII.  did  not  pre- 
tend to  shelter  himself  behind  any  indirection,  and  that  in 
asserting  his  primacy  and  supremacy  he  required  it  to  be 

(")  Gosselin,  vol.  ii.,  p.  366  (note). 


598  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

recognized  as  a  part  of  the  faith,  that  the  power  of  the  pope 
over  both  spirituals  and  temporals  was  derived  directly 
from  God,  and  was  not  susceptible  of  any  human  limitation. 
This  is  the  fair  and  only  import  of  his  language,  previous- 
ly quoted, (^^)  and  of  all  his  official  acts  when  dealing  with 
the  European  kings.  Even  in  dealing  with  Philip,  King  of 
France— the  favorite  "Son  of  the  Church" — he  forbade  him 
lay  investiture,  and  addressed  a  letter  to  the  French  bish- 
ops, declaring  that  if  they  did  not  obey  him,  and  not  the 
king,  to  whom  by  the  law  of  France  they  owed  allegiance, 
"  he  would,  with  God's  help,  use  every  means  to  wrest  the 
kingdom  of  France  from  his  hands.''^'")  And  his  labored 
exertions  to  establish  a  holy  empire  or  ecclesiastical  state,  in 
the  form  of  a  revived  Jewish  theocracy,  indicates  how  com- 
pletely, if  he  had  succeeded,  he  would  have  absorbed  all  the 
spiritual  and  political  power  of  the  world.  (*") 

Nor  did  Adrian  IV.,  Innocent  III.,  or  Boniface  YIIL,  up  to 
the  beginning  of  the  fourteenth  century,  pretend  to  rest 
this  supremacy  upon  any  other  ground  than  that  asserted 
by  Gregory  VII.  The  blight  of  the  Middle  Ages  was  rest- 
ing upon  the  world  during  their  pontificates,  and  there  was 
no  necessity  for  moderation  or  disguise.  Reason  was  not 
then  free  to  expose  or  combat  their  errors  or  usurpations. 
There  was  no  free  thought  or  free  press  in  those  days.  Prot- 
estantism was  not  then  born.  The  iron  weight  of  the  papa- 
cy rested  upon  all  the  nations,  and  even  kings  so  crouched 
at  the  feet  of  these  great  pontiffis  as  to  cause  Dante  to  ex- 
claim, 

"How  many  now  hold  themselves  mighty  kings, 

Who  here  like  swine  shall  wallow  in  the  mire, 

Leaving  behind  them  horrible  dispraise!" 

When  Adrian  IV.  granted  Ireland  to  King  Henry  II.  and 
authorized  him  to  subjugate  the  Irish  people,  he  did  so  ex- 
pressly upon  the  ground  that  it  "  belonged  to  the  Holy  See  " 
by  a  divine  right,  and  that  he  could  dispose  of  it  as  seemed 
right  to  him ;  asserting,  at  the  same  time,  the  right  in  all 
the  popes  to  dispose  of  every  country  where  Christianity 
had  been  received.     Innocent  III.  declared  that  his  power 

C^)  Ante,  eh.  iii.  ('»)  Reichel,  p.  205.  O  Ibid.,  p.  282. 


THE  PAPAL  CLAIM  OF  DIRECT  POWER.  599 

came  directly  from  Heaven,  and  was  based  "  on  a  divine  ordi- 
nance;" and  that  the  authority  of  princes  was  derived  from 
him ;  wherefore  he  gave  away  crowns,  disposed  of  govern- 
ments, and  transferred  peoples  from  one  allegiance  to  an- 
other, in  the  name  of  God  and  the  Church.  And  Boniface 
VIII.,  in  his  bull  Unam  Sanctam — which  remains  a  part  of 
the  canon  law — set  forth  the  doctrine  that  temporal  govern- 
ments should  be  conducted  "for  the  Church,"  and  that  "for 
every  human  being  subjection  to  the  pope  was  necessary  for 
salvation ;"  deriving  the  tremendous  power  he  asserted  di- 
rectly from  God  alone. 

All  the  popes  who  at  various  times  before  the  sixteenth 
century  claimed  this  supremacy  asserted  the  direct  power 
over  all  nations.  They  universally  regarded  it  as  an  attri- 
bute attached  to  the  papacy  by  Christ,  descending  to  them 
from  the  apostle  Peter,  and  reaching  out  to  the  utmost 
bounds  of  the  earth,  in  order  that  all  mankind  may  in  the 
end  be  saved.  Whatever  may  have  been  said  by  others  for 
them  since  then  is  no  part  of  the  original  argument  by  which 
the  power  was  sustained,  but  merely  the  invention  of  such 
limitations  upon  it  as  prudence  and  expediency  have  dic- 
tated. The  original  argument  remains  the  same.  If  it  does 
not,  the  power  does.  Its  comprehensiveness  is  in  no  way 
lessened  by  shifting  the  method  and  grounds  of  its  defense. 
While,  since  Bellarmine,  a  vast  amount  of  ingenuity  has 
been  displayed  in  the  discovery  of  various  arguments,  often 
conflicting,  to  reconcile  the  world  to  its  exercise,  the  popes 
themselves,  even  when  it  has  been  held  in  abeyance,  have 
treated  it  as  a  part  of  the  faith — unalterable  and  forever  the 
same.  And  Pope  Pius  IX.  is  not  behind  any  of  them  in  as- 
serting it  to  be  all-absorbing,  and  in  denouncing  and  anath- 
ematizing every  thing  which  stands  in  its  way.  His  infalli- 
bility being  now  established,  the  Church  has  assigned  to  him 
the  incapacity  to  err,  and  the  same  incapacity  to  all  his  pred- 
ecessors. Hence  it  binds  itself,  and  requires  all  its  mem- 
bers to  recognize  the  doctrines  and  principles  advanced  by 
any  and  all  of  them  as  the  true  "  Catholic  doctrines."  And 
these  doctrines  being  true,  the  inevitable  and  logical  result, 
from  which  no  ingenuity  can  contrive  a  loop-hole  of  escape, 
is  that  the  divine  and  legitimate  authority  which  the  pope 


600  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

has  at  any  time  acquired  over  any  government  or  country 
by  virtue  of  discovery,  conquest,  or  compact,  can  not  be  dis- 
placed by  any  act  considered  as  usurpation,  or  by  any  ille- 
gitimate act,  no  matter  in  what  way  it  may  have  been  con- 
summated. As  "the  domain  of  the  Catholic  Church"  was 
extended  by  the  discovery  of  America  by  Columbus,  acting 
for  and  in  the  name  of  the  reigning  pope,  Alexander  YLj^^') 
and  spiritual  jurisdiction  was  thereby  acquired  over  this  con- 
tinent in  obedience  to  the  providence  of  God,  that  jurisdic- 
tion, though  disturbed  for  a  time  by  revolution  and  usurpa- 
tion, exists  yet  in  all  its  original  vigor !  As  temporal  juris- 
diction necessarily  follows  the  spiritual,  that  also  exists  in  a 
like  degree,  to  be  resumed  whensoever  by  possibility  it  may 
be  done,  and  it  shall  become  prudent  to  attempt  its  recov- 
ery !  The  resumption  of  both  these  jurisdictions  is  com- 
manded by  Almighty  God  in  order  to  secure  the  universal- 
ity of  the  6nly  true  Church,  against  which  "  the  gates  of  hell 
shall  not  prevail !" 

Thus  has  the  Jesuit  reasoned  ever  since  the  wonderful  sys- 
tem of  Loyola  was  contrived  in  aid  of  the  papacy;  and  thus 
must  necessarily  reason  all  who  accept  the  dogma  of  papal 
infallibility.  The  author  of  "  Protestantism  and  Catholici- 
ty Compared,"  etc.,  understood  all  this  when  he  wrote  his 
book,  as  also  did  his  American  publishers  when  they  recom- 
mended it  as  "  peculiarly  adapted  "  to  the  wants  of  this  age. 


(^^)  It  seems  little  less  than  profanation  to  assign  infallibility  to  such  a  pope 
as  Alexander  VL,  when  all  history  assigns  to  him  a  multitude  of  crimes — 
among  them  an  incestuous  intimacy  with  his  own  daughter,  Lucretia  Borgia 
— as  inconsistent  with  the  life  of  a  professing  Christian  as  they  are  shocking 
to  the  moral  sense  of  mankind. 

It  was  to  this  pope  that  the  kings  of  Spain  and  Portugal  referred  the  ques- 
tion of  boundary  between  the  American  possessions  each  of  them  claimed  by 
virtue  of  discovery.  If  he  had  merely  decided  what  was  submitted  to  him,  it 
might  be  claimed  for  him  that  he  was  a  mere  arbitrator.  But  he  went  fur- 
ther, and  "traced  a  line  from  pole  to  pole,  through  the  Azores,  or  Western 
islands,  and  decreed,  by  virtue  of  his  universal  omnipotence,  that  all  countries 
which  were  beyond  this  line — that  is,  the  West  Indies  or  America  —  should 
belong  to  the  King  of  Spain  ;  and  those  on  this  side — that  is,  the  East  Indies 
and  the  shores  of  Africa — to  the  King  of  Portugal,"  The  only  conditions 
were  the  payment  of  a  large  sum  of  money  to  him,  and  the  conversion  of  the 
inhabitants  to  Christianity,  by  force  if  necessary, — Cormenin,  vol.  ii.,  p,  154. 


WHEN  ALLEGIANCE  IS  NOT  DUE.  601 

because  it  sets  forth  "  the  glorious  character  of  the  faith ;" 
and  he  and  they  manifestly  contemplated  the  occurrence  of 
such  events  as  would  bring  the  world  into  a  condition  for 
the  practical  application  of  these  doctrines.  At  all  events,  he 
felt  it  to  be  the  duty  of  the  papacy,  in  whose  behalf  he  wrote, 
to  keep  them  fresh  in  the  minds  of  its  devotees,  so  as  to  hold 
them  in  readiness  for  such  a  time,  whensoever  it  should  ar- 
rive. And,  consequently,  his  work  would  have  been  left  in- 
complete if  he  had  failed  to  point  out  the  ultimate  results 
to  be  expected  from  these  "  Catholic  doctrines ;"  that  is,  if 
he  had  not  indicated  "  how  the  civil  power  may  be  lawfully 
resisted."  To  this  special  subject,  therefore,  he  has  devoted 
a  chapter,  which  begins  thus : 

"From  what  has  been  said  in  the  foregoing  chapters,  it 
follows  that  it  is  allowable  to  resist  illegitimate  power  by 
force.  The  Catholic  religion  does  not  enjoin  obedience  to 
governments  existing  merely  de  facto ;  for  morality  does 
not  admit  a  mere  fact  unsupported  by  right  and  justice."(") 

And  then,  referring  to  the  teachings  of  St.  Thomas,  which 
we  have  already  seen,  in  support  of  his  proposition  that  "an 
equality  of  social  and  political  rights"  is  impossible,  he  pass- 
es on  to  define  what  is  meant  by  papal  interference  in  the 
affairs  of  governments,  and  to  show  that  it  is  nothing  less 
than  the  direct  interposition  of  God  himself!     He  says  : 

"For  many  centuries  there  has  been  inculcated  in  Europe 
a  doctrine  much  criticised  by  those  who  do  not  understand 
it,  the  intervention  of  the  pontifical  authority  between  the 
people  and  their  sovereigns.  This  doctrine  was  nothing  less 
than  Heaven  descending  as  an  arbiter  and  judge,  to  put  an 
end  to  the  dispute  of  the  earth." (") 

And  this  remarkable  chapter  is  wound  up  by  pointing  to 
the  times  when  the  tempest  of  revolution  has  burst  upon  the 
world,  and  thrones  have  been  overturned,  and  royal  heads 
cut  ofi* "  in  the  name  of  liberty  ;"  to  all  of  which  he  declares 
the  Church  says  "  this  is  no  liberty,  bid  a  succession  of 
crimes;  the  fraternity  and  equality  which  I  have  taught 
were  never  your  orgies  and  guillotines "(") — thus  placing 
all  political  revolutions  along-side  of  each  other,  and  seeming 

O  Balmes,  ch.  Ivi.,  p.  336.         O  Ibid.,  p.^340.        (")  Ibid.,  p,  343. 


602  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

not  to  know  that  it  was  only  that  of  Roman  Catholic  France 
where  "  orgies  and  guillotines  "  were  substituted  for  law  and 
order. 

What  man  is  so  ignorant  as  not  to  understand  all  this? 
"The  Catholic  religion  does  not  enjoin  obedience  to  govern- 
ments existing  de  facto  T  that  is,  governments  not  founded 
on  the  law  of  God.  No  such  thing  as  "  an  equality  of  social 
and  political  rights  "  is  possible  !  "  The  intervention  of  the 
pontifical  authority  between  the  people  and  the  sovereigns," 
or  between  them  and  their  governments,  is  only  ''^Heaven 
descending  as  an  arbiter  and  judge,"  in  the  person  of  the 
pope,  to  hold  them  to  the  line  of  duty !  The  liberty  which 
allows  thrones  to  be  overturned  and  kings  to  be  dispensed 
with,  "is  no  liberty,  but  a  succession  of  crimes  !"(") 

This  author  was  not  disposed  to  shield  the  papacy  behind 
any  disguise  whatever,  but  marched  bravely  up  to  the  work 
he  had  in  hand.  He  felt  himself  too  secure  in  Spain  to  prac- 
tice any  deception  upon  a  point  of  doctrine  so  absolutely 
essential  to  the  maintenance  of  the  ultramontane  party,  of 
which  he  was  a  distinguished  member.  He  was  too  truth- 
ful for  subterfuge.  And,  therefore,  he  could  do  no  less  than 
declare  that  the  power  of  the  pope  over  both  spirituals  and 
temporals  is  derived  directly  from  God,  and  that  its  exercise 
over  the  world  is  the  act  of  God  himself! 

We  all  concede  that  whatever  is  derived  from  God  must 
be  just  and  right:  he  is  infallible.  Whosoever  shall  be  per- 
suaded to  believe  that  these  doctrines  are  according  to  his 
teachings,  to  him  they  necessarily  become  just  and  right. 
No  defender  of  papal  infallibility  is  permitted  to  deny  them 
— excommunication  and  anathema  have  already  been  decreed 
against  him  if  he  does.  With  all  such,  then,  their  duty  to 
the  Church  is  higher  and  more  obligatory  than  any  duty 
they  can  owe  to  human  governments,  either  in  the  United 
States  or  elsewhere.  And  if  the  pope  shall  tell  them,  in  an 
official  bull  or  brief,  that  there  are  principles  of  government 

Q^')  It  should  not  be  forgotten  that  this  is  one  of  the  authors  to  whom 
Archbishop  Bayley,  of  Baltimore,  referred  his  friend  for  the  true  teachings  of 
the  Church.  Should  it  not  command  the  most  serious  attention,  when  the 
fact  is  thus  openly  avowed  that  American  citizens  are  trained  in  such  a 
school  ? 


THE  ISSUE  TO  BE  DECIDED.  603 

prevailing  here  which  are  condemned  by  the  law  of  God ; 
that  this  country  belongs  of  right  to  "  the  domain  of  the 
Catholic  Church  "  by  virtue  of  the  discovery  by  Columbus ; 
that  this  right,  being  divine,  can  never  be  destroyed  or  im- 
paired by  revolution ;  that  the  papal  jurisdiction  has  been 
wrongfully  and  criminally  displaced  by  lawless  usurpation ; 
that  the  Government  existing  here  is  de  facto^  and  not  de 
jure,  because  it  is  merely  human,  and  not  such  as  God's  law 
requires ;  that  it  does  not  recognize  the  temporal  power  as 
subordinate  to  the  spiritual,  which  God  commands,  but  the 
spiritual,  in  its  exterior  organization,  as  subordinate  to  the 
temporal,  which  God  forbids ;  that  it  has  disunited  the  State 
and  the  Church,  and  tolerates  different  forms  of  religion, 
which  is  heresy;  that  all  such  institutions  as  ours,  being 
Protestant,  are  infidel,  because  they  deny  to  the  papacy 
the  right  to  measure  our  laws  by  the  papal  standard — if  he 
shall  tell  them  any  or  all  of  these  things,  and  enjoin  upon 
them  that,  in  view  of  all  this  wrong,  injustice,  and  crime,  it 
is  a  duty  which  the  papacy  owes  to  God  to  re-assert  its  ju- 
risdiction here,  to  restore  again  the  true  apostolic  Christian- 
ity, to  banish  all  this  heresy,  and  to  build  up  a  lawfid  gov- 
ernment constructed  according  to  the  divine  plan;  with  all 
these  and  other  kindred  propositions  before  their  minds, 
pressed  and  urged  upon  them  by  cunning  and  adroit  priests, 
trained  for  the  purpose  in  Jesuit  schools,  what  will  those 
who  believe  that  the  pope  is  infallible  do  and  say?  Will 
they  obey  or  disobey  the  pope?  That  is  the  question  which 
no  ingenuity  can  evade.  He  who  accepts  papal  infallibility, 
and  with  it  the  ultramontane  interpretation  of  the  power  of 
the  pope  over  the  world,  and  thinks  that  by  offending  the 
pope  he  offends  God,  will  obey  passively,  unresistingly,  un- 
inquiringly.  Such  a  man,  whether  priest  or  layman,  high  or 
low,  is  necessarily  inimical  to  the  Government  and  political 
institutions  of  the  United  States.  With  him  his  oath  of  al- 
legiance would  be  worth  no  more  than  the  paper  upon  which 
it  is  written.  It  would  not  stand  a  single  moment  before 
the  all-absorbing  absolutism  of  the  pope,  whose  commands 
are  equivalent  with  him  to  those  of  God.  Or  if,  for  a  mo- 
ment, he  should  stop  to  consider  the  extent  of  its  possible 
obligation,  the  pope  would  be  ready  to  assure  him  that,  as  it 


604  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

required  him  to  do  what  the  welfare  of  his  Church  and  the 
will  of  God  forbade  him  to  do,  it  was  null  and  void  from  the 
beginning.  Or  if  still  there  should  be  some  little  unrest  in 
his  conscience,  some  slight  misgivings  as  to  the  true  line  of 
his  duty,  the  power  of  dispensation  would  be  ready  at  hand 
to  release  him  from  the  obligation  of  his  sworn  allegiance, 
and  snap  the  cords  that  bind  him  to  the  Government,  as  the 
same  kind  of  cords  have  been  snapped  by  other  popes  and 
in  other  countries.  To  this  end  do  the  papal  teachings  in- 
evitably lead :  it  is  their  natural  and  logical  result. 

The  law  of  the  Church  is  in  its  canons.  These  are  made 
by  the  decrees  of  popes  and  councils.  One  of  the  greatest 
of  the  popes.  Innocent  III.,  asserted  for  himself  such  pleni- 
tude of  power  as  gave  him  the  right  to  dispense  with  any 
law.  The  Fourth  General  Lateran  Council,  with  the  approv- 
al of  this  same  pope,  enacted  a  canon  wherein  it  is  declared 
that  constitutions  which  are  prejudicial  to  the  rights  of  the 
Church  shall  not  be  observed  ;  thus,  by  the  use  of  impera- 
tive language,  making  the  non-observance  of  them  obliga- 
tory. The  Decretals,  which  are  the  body  of  the  canon  law, 
contain  provisions  to  the  same  effect.  The  Third  General 
Lateran  Council,  with  the  approval  of  Alexander  III,  de- 
creed that  an  oath  in  opposition  to  the  welfare  of  the 
Church  and  the  enactments  of  the  holy  fathers  is  not  to  be 
called  an  oath  at  all,  but  rather  perjury.  Peter  Dens,  the 
great  commentator  on  the  laws  and  moral  theology  of  the 
Church,  lays  it  down  as  the  law  of  the  Church  that  the 
right  of  the  pope,  as  the  ultimate  superior  and  sovereign,  is 
reserved  in  every  oath ;  which,  of  course,  includes  the  oath 
of  allegiance.  He  also  instructs  the  faithful  that  the  pope 
has  the  power  of  withdrawing  or  prohibiting  what  is  in- 
cluded in  an  oath,  and  that  when  he  does  so  it  is  no  longer 
included.  And  Bishop  England,  driven  to  the  wall  by  an 
ingenious  and  learned  adversary,  from  the  point  of  whose 
lance  he  could  not  escape,  was  compelled  to  admit  the  law 
of  the  Church  yet  to  be  as  it  was  established  by  the  Third 
Lateran  Council.  Under  such  a  law  the  papacy  has  but  to 
demonstrate  to  its  followers  that  a  constitution  or  law  of 
the  State"  is  opposed  to  the  welfare  of  the  Church,  when  it 
becomes  their  religious  duty  to  treat  the  oath  to  obey  such 


"MENTAL  EESTRICTIONS."  605 

constitution  or  law  as  no  oath  at  all,  but  rather  perjury. 
And  if  this  provision  were  not  so  plain  and  emphatic  as  to 
be  insusceptible  of  misunderstanding,  the  papacy,  ever  on 
the  alert,  has  provided  its  doctrines  of  "mental  restrictions" 
and  "  ambiguity  and  equivocation,"  as  the  final  means  of  es- 
cape from  almost  every  imaginable  promise  or  oath,  except 
where  the  party  is  bound  to  the  papacy  itself.  Its  adroit 
training  of  its  subjects  in  the  school  of  dissimulation  shows 
how  completely  the  practice  of  falsehood  may  be  systema- 
tized into  a  science.  Of  course,  the  abstract  proposition 
that  it  is  unlawful  to  lie  in  any  event  is  laid  down  in  gener- 
al terms ;  but  in  each  special  case  as  it  arises  rules  are  fur- 
nished by  which  to  decide  what  is  and  what  is  not  a  lie. 
"  Mental  restrictions  "  are  of  two  kinds  :  purely  mental  and 
real.  In  the  first,  falsehood  is  not  excused,  because  there  is 
no  external  sign  to  signify  that  which  is  restricted  in  the 
mind.  In  the  second,  there  is  no  falsehood,  because  the  ex- 
ternal circumstances  signify  that  something  is  secretly  un- 
derstood.    Thus,  as  to  real  restriction,  it  is  said : 

"Real  restriction  occurs  when  the  declaration  is  false,  if 
we  regard  the  words  alone  ;  but  circumstances  concur  which 
signify  that  something  is  to  be  secretly  understood,  which 
the  speaker  keeps  in  his  mind,  and  which,  being  secretly  un- 
derstood, the  declaration  is  true."(^®) 

This  rule  had  the  sanction  of  one  of  the  infallible  popes, 


{^^)  "  Restrictio  realis  occurrit,  dum  enuntiato,  spectatis  solis  verbis,  falsa 
est,  sed  circumstantiae  concurrunt,  qua;  significant  aliquid  esse  subintelligen- 
dum,  quod  loquens  in  mente  tenet,  et  quo  subintellecto,  enuntiato  est  vera." 
—Dens,  vol.  iv.,  No.  244,  p.  309. 

It  is  almost  impossible  to  procure  in  the  United  States  a  copy  of  this  work 
of  Peter  Dens.  I  have  seen  it  advertised  by  at  least  two  Catholic  publishing 
houses,  and  have  made  tlie  effort  to  obtain  it  from  them,  but  failed.  I  suc- 
ceeded, at  last,  in  getting  a  copy  from  London.  It  is  in  Latin,  in  eight  vol- 
umes —  manifestly  designed  as  instructive  to  the  priesthood  alone,  by  whom 
laymen  are  to  be  impressed  with  its  teachings.  Messrs.  Lippincott  &  Co. 
have  recently  published  a  "Synopsis"  of  it,  translated  by  Professor  Berg, 
which  contains  the  most  material  parts  of  it,  except  what  relates  to  confes- 
sional, etc.,  which  is  too  indecent  for  translation.  I  have  used  this  transla- 
tion, except  in  the  case  of  oaths — which  it  does  not  include — and  have  given 
the  original  along  with  it,  that  the  classical  reader  may  test  its  accuracy.  He 
will  find  it  both  literal  and  faithful. 


606  *  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

Innocent  XL,  which,  of  course,  adds  greatly  to  its  influence. 
In  a  proposition  laid  down  by  hira,  he  said : 

"  If  any,  either  alone  or  before  others,  whether  asked  or 
of  his  own  accord,  or  for  the  purpose  of  sport,  or  for  any  oth- 
er object,  swears  that  he  has  7iot  done  something  which  in 
reality  he  has  done,  by  understanding  within  himself  some- 
thing else  which  he  has  not  done,  or  a  different  way  from  that 
in  which  he  has  done  it,  or  any  other  truth  that  is  added, 
he  does  not  really  lie,  nor  is  he  perjured-''^^^) 

It  will  be  readily  observed  how  wide  these  rules  open  the 
door  for  falsehood  and  perjury  —  how  completely  they  tend 
to  destroy  all  confidence  between  men,  and  all  faith  and  in- 
tegrity. But  as  if  this  abominable  doctrine  of  "mental  re- 
striction" were  not  sufficient  to  enable  the  order  of  Jesuits 
to  triumph  over  the  world  by  the  system  of  fraud  which  it 
is  designed  to  legitimate,  that  of  "  ambiguity  and  equivoca- 
tion "  is  superadded  to  give  it  both  efficiency  and  complete- 
ness. It  amounts  to  this :  that  if  a  proposition  is  suscepti- 
ble of  two  meanings,  one  may  be  expressed  when  it  is  not 
meant,  and  the  other,  which  is  meant,  may  be  reserved  in  the 
mind.     Hence  it  is  said  : 

"An  equivocation  of  this  kind  does  not  contain  a  lie,  in 
whatever  sense  it  may  be  received  ;  because  the  external 
words  truly  signify  that  sense  which  the  speaker  has  in 
his  mind,  and  thus  differs  from  a  purely  mental  reserva- 
tion, in  which  the  external  words  do  not  contain  the  mental 
sense."C«) 

That  these  rules  are  part  of  the  Jesuit  system  of  "  mental 
reservations,"  is  undoubted.  Sanchez,  one  of  the  fathers, 
says:  "A  man  may  swear  that  he  never  did  such  a  thing 
(though  he  actually  did  it),  meaning  within  himself  that  he 

^27^  "  Probatur  etiam  ex  damnatione  hujus  prop.  36.,  Innoc.  XT. :  '  Si  quis 
vel  solus  vel  coram  aliis,  sive  interrogatus,  sive  sponte  propria,  sive  recrea- 
tionis  causa,  sive  quocumque  alio  fine,  juret  se  non  fecisse  aliquid,  quod  re- 
vera  fecit  intelligendo  intra  se  aliquid  aliud,  quod  non  fecit,  vel  aliam  viam 
ab  ea,  in  qua  fecit,  vel  quodvis  aliud  additum,  revera  non  mentitur,  nee  est 
perjurus.' " — Dens,  vol.  iv.,  pp.  309,  310. 

O  "Hujusmodi  aequivocatio  non  continet  mendacium,  in  quocumque 
sensu  accipiatur,  quia  verba  externa  vere  significant  ilium  sensum,  quem  lo- 
quens  in  mente  habet,  et  sic  differt  a  restrictione  pure  mentali,  in  qu§,  verba 
externa  non  continent  sensum  mentalem." — Dens,  vol.  iv.,  p.  311. 


AMBIGUITY  AND  EQUIVOCATION.  607 

did  not  do  so  on  a  certain  day,  or  before  he  was  born,  or  un- 
derstanding any  other  such  circumstance,  while  the  words 
which  he  employs  have  no  such  sense  as  would  discover 
his  raeaning."('^^)  The  reason  given  by  him  and  Filiutius, 
another  father,  is  that  "  it  is  the  intention  that  determines 
the  quality  of  the  action."f°)  And  they  give  a  surer  meth- 
od of  avoiding  falsehood  :  "After  saying  aloud,  I  swear  that 
I  have  not  done  that,  to  add  in  a  low  voice,  to-day;  or  aft- 
er saying  aloud,  I  swear,  to  interpose  in  a  whisper,  that  I 
say,  and  then  continue  aloud,  that  I  have  done  that."(^*)  The 
same  rule  is  also  expressed  in  these  words  :  "  No  more  is  re- 
quired of  them  to  avoid  lying  than  simply  to  say  that  they 
have  not  done  what  they  have  done,  provided  '  they  have  in 
general  the  intention  of  giving  to  their  language  the  sense 
which  an  able  man  would  give  to  it."'f^)  And  Escobar,  an- 
other and  greater  of  the  Jesuit  fathers,  lays  down  the  fol- 
lowing lax  and  demoralizing  rule  in  reference  to  promises 
not  confirmed  by  an  oath :  "  Promises  are  not  binding  when 
the  person  in  making  them  had  no  intention  to  bind  him- 

self."n 

Now,  with  the  believer  in  the  ultramontane  doctrines  which 
prevail  at  Rome,  and  which,  since  the  decree  of  papal  infal- 
libility, have  become  the  only  doctrines  which  the  pope  will 
allow  to  be  accepted  as  true,  it  is  quite  certain  that  the  oath 
of  allegiance  will  not  stand,  for  a  single  moment,  in  the  way 
of  his  obedience  to  any  command  of  the  pope  for  the  promo- 
tion of  the  welfare  and  interest  of  the  Church.  In  taking 
the  oath,  how  easy  was  it  for  him  to  have  renounced  his  al- 
legiance to  some  civil  monarch  ;  yet,  at  the  same  time,  to 
have  reserved  in  his  mind  his  allegiance  to  the  pope,  not  as 
a  civil  monarch  in  the  same  sense,  but  as  the  spiritual  head 
of  the  Church,  whose  power,  divinely  granted,  included  au- 
thority over  all  temporal  affairs  within  its  jurisdiction !  But 
if  he  did  not  have  this  reservation,  the  other  modes  of  es- 
cape are  equally  effective.      Possibly,  there  are  not  very 

O  "  The  Provincial  Letters,"  by  Pascal,  letter  ix.,  p.  277. 

oibid.  nibid.  c')ibid. 

(^')  Ihid.,  p.  278.  The  great  Bossuet  condemned  all  this  doctrine  as  "  per- 
nicious in  morality,"  and  for  that  and  other  reasons  was  a  Galilean  Catholic, 
and  not  a  Jesuit. 


608  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

many  who  have  made  this  reservation,  but  these  will  la- 
bor assiduously  to  increase  their  number.  The  Jesuits,  and 
those  upon  whose  minds  they  have  impressed  their  teach- 
ings, understand  it  perfectly  well ;  and  their  struggles  to 
obtain  the  mastery  over  the  world  are  unremitting.  They 
have  the  unabating  ardor  of  an  army  held  together  and  in- 
spirited by  the  promise  and  expectation  of  victory. 

It  is  fair  to  assume  that  a  majority  of  those  Roman  Cath- 
olics who  have  taken  the  oath  of  allegiance  had  no  such 
mental  reservation.  But  these  well-meaning  and  good  citi- 
zens are  relied  on  to  acquiesce,  by  their  silence,  in  what  may 
be  done  by  such  as  had.  These  seem  to  have  no  conception 
of  the  extent  to  which  this  passive  submission  may  carry 
them.  They  may  well  pause  at  this  point  for  reflection  and 
self-examination,  while  they  are  protected  by  institutions 
which  allow  this  to  them.  If  they  shall  do  so,  they  may 
readily  see  how  completely  they  have  become  entangled  in 
the  meshes  of  the  Jesuit  net,  and  realize  the  nature  of  the 
efl:brts  their  hierarchy  are  now  making  to  bring  them  under 
the  government  of  the  canon  laws  of  Rome,  whensoever  the 
existing  laws  of  the  United  States  shall  conflict  with  them. 
Perhaps  not  one  in  a  thousand  is  aware  of  these  efforts. 

The  proceedings  of  "  the  Second  Plenary  Council  of  Bal- 
timore "  were  referred  to  in  the  second  chapter,  to  show  the 
preference  of  the  American  hierarchy  for  the  Catholic  over 
the  Protestant  system  of  government,  and  their  opposition 
to  certain  laws  of  the  United  States.  From  what  was  there 
said  it  would  appear,  very  satisfactorily,  that  their  purpose 
was  to  bring  about  that  condition  of  things  which  shall  re- 
sult in  governing  this  country  by  the  canon  law  of  Rome — 
some  of  the  principles  of  which,  as  they  affect  the  obligation 
of  allegiance,  have  been  explained.  If  there  was  left  any 
doubt  upon  that  subject,  it  may  be  easily  removed.  Since 
that  chapter  was  written,  a  work  has  appeared  entitled 
*'  Notes  on  the  Second  Plenary  Council  of  Baltimore."  The 
preface  thus  begins : 

"The  desire  of  gradually  introducing  in  this  country, 
as  far  as  practicable,  the  ecclesiastical  discipline  prevalent 
throughout  almost  the  entire  Church,  was  strongly  and  re- 
peatedly expressed  by  the  fathers  of  the  late  National  Coun- 


SECOND  COUNCIL  OF  BALTIMORE.  609 

cil  of  Baltimore.  Its  decrees  tend  both  avowedly  and  implic- 
itly to  promote  the  accomplishment  of  this  object.^\^*) 

The  author  professes  to  propound  the  Decrees  of  Balti- 
more, because  they  are  designed  to  establish  "  the  same  hie- 
rarchy, and,  in  consequence,  substantially  the  same  relations 
between  bishops,  priests,  and  laity,"  as  exist  elsewhere  in  the 
same  Church.  (") 

In  defining  the  canon  law,  he  calls  the  Church  a  perfect  and 
sovereign  society,  which  possesses  "  a  three-fold  power — leg- 
islative, judicial,  and  coercive  or  executive,"  and  which  can 
not  be  subordinate  to  any  other  societ5^  (^*')  There  are  but 
two  perfect  societies — the  Church  and  the  State ;  the  Church 
is  "  absolutely  supreme;'^''  the  State  "  but  relatively  supreme^ 
The  State,  when  emancipated  from  the  Church,  "  stands  in 
open  revolt  against  God  himself;"  there  should,  therefore, 
be  such  "  close  union  "  between  them  that  they  should  "  as- 
sist each  other."(")  He  calls  the  canon  law  the  "common 
law  "  of  the  Church,  which  "  is  obligatory  on  all  the  faithful 
spread  throughout  the  world ;"  and  makes  it  comprise,  in  so 
far  as  it  is  written,  "  The  Constitutions  and  Decretal  Epistles 
of  the  Sovereign  Pontiffs,"  and  the  "Decrees  of  Ecumenical 
Councils."(^'*)  He  then  defines  the  principles  of  the  common 
law,  among  which  are  those  which  follow: 

The  pope  can  dispense  with  any  law.(^^)  The  constitutions 
and  decrees  of  the  popes  are  explanations  of  the  divine  law, 
and  are,  therefore,  binding  as  soon  as  known.  (*")  The  Church 
does  not  recognize  the  right  in  any  government  to  say  wheth- 
er or  not  the  pontifical  decrees  shall  be  enforced  :  "  She  is  su- 
preme and  independent,  and  therefore  can  admit  of  no  inter- 
meddling with  her  authority."(*')  The  Isidorian  Decretals, 
although  now  known  to  be  spurious  and  false,  were  looked 
upon  as  genuine  for  seven  hundred  years,  or  until  their  fraud- 
ulent character  was  discovered  by  Protestants  in  the  six- 
teenth century ;{")  yet  they  aided  materially  in  building  up 
the  papal  system,  and  there  is  no  pretense  that  the  popes 

C*)"  Notes  on  the  Second  Plenary  Council  of  Baltimore,"  by  Smith, 
Preface,  p.  iii. 

Q")  Ibid.,  Preface,  p.  vii.         (^)  Ibid.,  p.  7.  (")  Ibid.,  pp.  8,  9. 

n  Ibid.,  pp.  11, 12.  r)  Ibid.,  p.  17.  n  Ibid.,  p.  21. 

(*')  Ibid., -p.  27.  n/6tU,p.  32.     ' 

39 


610  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

have  abandoned  such  provisions  of  them  as  increase  their 
power.  The  pope  alone  is  the  interpreter  of  the  divine  law, 
and  his  temporal  power  is  necessary  to  the  free  exercise  of 
his  spiritual  authority.  (*^)  He  derives  his  jurisdiction  im- 
mediately from  God,  and  imparts  a  share  of  the  plenitude 
of  his  power  to  his  bishops.  (**)  Ecclesiastical  property  must 
be  governed  by  the  laws  of  the  Church.  (")  The  State  ought 
to  recognize  and  carry  into  effect  the  laws  of  the  Church.  (*') 
By  these  laws,  laymen  have  no  right  of  property  in  the 
Church,  and  it  is  against  the  law  of  God  that  they  should 
dispose  of  its  revenues. (*^)  Where  the  mother  of  a  child  is 
a  Catholic,  and  the  father  a  heretic,  or  Protestant,  the  child 
may  be  baptized  at  the  request  of  the  mother,  and  against 
the  wishes  and  consent  of  the  father.  (*^)  Children  of  heretics 
may  be  baptized  against  the  will  of  both  their  parents ;  be- 
cause all  heretics  are  "^er  se  subject  to  the  laws  of  the 
Church."(")  Religious  books,  including  Bibles,  shall  not  be 
printed  without  the  consent  of  the  priesthood ;  and  all  such 
as  have  not  their  approbation  are  forbidden  to  be  read.(^'') 
The  coercive  power  of  the  Church  includes  the  power  "  to 
punish  the  insubordinate  and  repress  the  lawless;"  which 
extends  to  any  punishment,  short  of  shedding  blood,  such  as 
imprisonment  in  monasteries,  and  other  chastisements. (") 

These  provisions  fall  very  far  short  of  the  whole  body  of 
the  canon  law,  which  is  set  forth  in  the  papal  and  consu- 
lar decrees,  many  of  which  have  been  noticed ;  but  they  dis- 
tinctly show  the  purpose  of  the  hierarchy  to  be  the  introduc- 
tion of  the  whole  into  this  country,  gradually,  but  as  rapid- 
ly as  they  can,  either  by  the  exercise  of  direct  power,  or  be- 
cause of  the  inattention  and  toleration  of  the  American  peo- 
ple. All  the  power  they  can  now  control  is  directed  to,  and 
concentrated  in,  this  object.  It  will  be  observed  that  one 
reason  assigned  for  the  jurisdiction  they  seek  to  establish 
over  this  country,  is  that  all  heretics  are  "  subject  to  the 
laws  of  the  Church."     And  inasmuch  as  infidels,  who  have 


(**)  "Notes  on  the  Second  Plenary  Council  of  Baltimore,"  by  Smith,  p.  47. 
O /6iU,  pp.  77,  78.  n /6trf.,  p.  144.  C^)  Ibid.,-p.U9. 

{*')  Ibid.,  p.  150.  n  Ibid.,  p.  178.  (")  Ibid.,  pp.  178, 179. 

0  76id,pp.354,361,362.    (")  iJtd,  p.  372. 


INFIDELS  AND  HERETICS  TO  BE  PUNISHED.         611 

always  denied  the  faith,  are  included  among  the  heretics 
along  with  Jews  and  pagans,  this  jurisdiction  is  made  so 
complete  and  broad  as  to  include  the  entire  population  of 
the  country.  Not  only,  therefore,  do  these  hierarchs  con- 
sider themselves  entitled  to  possess  the  country  and  gov- 
ern it,  in  the  name  and  by  virtue  of  the  divine  right  of 
the  pope,  but  to  act  as  the  masters  and  superiors  of  all  class- 
es of  the  people — only  awaiting,  prudentially,  the  opportu- 
nity to  assert  and  exercise  this  high  ecclesiastical  prerog- 
ative. In  the  mean  time,  while  this  tremendous  authori- 
ty is  held  in  abeyance  by  our  civil  institutions,  the  papacy 
stands  ready  with  its  armory  full  of  ecclesiastical  weapons 
prepared  for  use.  If  these  are  somewhat  dulled  by  the  length 
of  time  they  have  lain  idle,  the  dogma  of  infallibility  has  cre- 
ated a  necessity  for  resharpening  and  burnishing  them  up 
again.  Therefore,  we  find  the  faithful  instructed  in  the  law 
of  the  papacy  as  to  the  manner  in  which  it  would  deal  with 
the  host  of  its  enemies  and  persecutors.  Thus,  it  is  said,  infi- 
dels "  are  not  to  be  tolerated ;  because  they  are  so  bad  that 
no  truth  or  advantage  for  the  good  of  the  Church  can  be 
thence  derived."(^'')  And  they  are  to  be  dealt  with  without 
trial  or  proof,  on  the  ground  of  being  incorrigible  and  rebell- 
ious from  the  beginning.  Infidelity  "^5  not  to  be  tried  or 
proved^  but  extirpated^''  subject  only  to  this  condition — that 
this  extirpation  may  be  suspended  where  "there  maybe  rea- 
sons which  may  render  it  advisable  that  it  should  be  toler- 
ated ;"  for  example,  where  the  power  to  extirpate  is  not  pos- 
sessed. (^^)  Heretics  as  such  are  to  be  dealt  with  under  spe- 
cial provisions  of  the  law,  made  to  fit  their  case  on  account 
of  their  crime  and  impiety  practiced  in  the  act  of  setting  up 
a  false  faith  in  opposition  to  that  of  Rome.  Baptized  here- 
tics are  to  be  visited  with  the  greater  excommunication  by 
the  pope,  as  in  the  case  of  the  bull  of  Pius  IX.,  a  few  years 
ago,  excommunicating  all  Protestants.  They  are  to  be  con- 
sidered as  infamous ;  and  their  temporal  goods  are  to  be  con- 

(^^)  "Ritus  aliorum  infidelium,  nempe  paganorum  et  hagreticorum,  per  se 
non  sunt  tolerandi ;  quia  ita  sunt  mali,  ut  nihil  veritatis  aut  utilitatis  in  bo- 
num  Ecclesiae  inde  derivetur." — Dens,  vol.  ii.,  No.  58,  p.  83. 

Q^)  ' '  Unde  tentenda  non  est  vel  probanda,  sed  extirpanda,  nisi  adsint  ra- 
tiones,  quse  illam  tolerandam  esse  suadeant." — Dens,  Ibid, 


612  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

fiscated.(")  They  are  to  be  subjected  to  corporal  punish- 
ment, to  exile,  and  imprisonme^it.i^^)  And  then,  to  complete 
the  work,  in  case  they  shall  remain  obstinate,  and  not  heed 
the  warnings  of  the  Church,  they  are  to  be  dealt  with  as 
John  Huss  and  Jerome  were  under  a  decree  of  the  Council 
of  Constance — that  is,  they  shall  suffer  death.  Let  not  the 
Protestant  reader  be  alarmed ;  this  is  only  the  law  of  the  pa- 
pacy, which  the  infallible  pope  with  his  hierarchical  auxilia- 
ries is  trying  to  enforce  here,  and  which  they  would  enforce 
if  the  world  could  be  carried  back  by  them  into  the  gloom 
and  superstition  of  the  Middle  Ages.  See,  however,  the  em- 
phatic and  plain  language  in  which  this  death  penalty  is  re- 
corded in  question  and  answer: 

"u4re  heretics  rightly  punished  with  death  ?  St.  Thomas 
2t.nswevs,Yes,hecause  forgers  of  money, or  other  disturbers  of 
the  State,  are  justly  punished  with  death;  therefore  also  her- 
etics, who  are  forgers  of  the  faith,  and  experience  being  the 
witness,  grievously  disturb  the  State."(") 

It  must  not  be  supposed  that  the  baptized  heretics  who 
are  thus  to  be  dealt  with  are  only  those  who  have  been  bap- 
tized into  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  The  class  is  much 
larger,  and  includes  all  baptized  Protestants  as  well,  pro- 
vided the  ceremony  has  been  performed  with  reference  to 
the  ordinary  essentials.  These  are  not  required  to  be  re- 
baptized  upon  reception  into  the  Roman  Church ;  and  are, 
therefore,  proper  subjects  of  excommunication  and  punish- 
ment. Since  the  time  of  St.  Augustine,  more  than  fourteen 
centuries  ago,  the  doctrine  on  this  subject  has  been  as  laid 
down  by  him,  as  follows :  "  For  in  all  points  in  which  they 
[heretics]  think  with  us  [Catholics]  they  are  also  in  com- 
munion with  us— are  severed  from  us  only  in  those  points 


(")  "Bona  eorum  temporalia  sunt  ipso  jure  confiscata." — Dens,  vol.  ii., 
No.  56,  p.  88. 

(^^)  "Denique  aliis  poenis  etiam  corporalibus,  ut  exilio,  carcere,  etc.,  merito 
afficiuntur." — Ibid.,  p.  89. 

(")  "An  hajretici  recte  puniuntur  morte?  Respondet  S.  Thomas,  2,  2, 
qucest.  11,  art.  3,  in  '  Corp.'  affirmative  :  quia  falsarii  pecunise,  vei  alii  Rera- 
publicam  turbantes,  juste  morte  puniuntur:  ergo  etiam  hjeretici,  qui  sunt 
falsarii  fidei,  et  experientia  teste,  Rempublicam  graviter  perturbant." — 
Dens,  p.  89. 


JURISDICTION  OVER  PROTESTANTS.  613 

in  which  they  dissent  from  ns.  What  they  have  retained  of 
the  teaching  of  the  Church,  they  do  not  lose  by  severance 
from  her ;  hence,  the  power  of  conferring  baptism  may  be 
found  outside  the  Church.  Moreover,  it  is  Christ  himself 
who  baptizes.  The  grace  of  the  Sacrament  is  wholly  inde- 
pendent of  the  qualification  of  him  who  administers  it."(") 

Thus  it  is  manifest  that  all  Protestants  who  have  been 
baptized  are  held  to  be  in  "communion"  with  the  Roman 
Church  for  the  purpose  of  punishment  for  the  crime  of  here- 
sy, and,  consequently,  they  are  now,  in  the  papal  view,  under 
sentence  of  death — the  executioner  merely  waiting  for  suffi- 
cient power  to  enforce  the  decree,  which  has  stood  unre- 
voked and  unchanged  since  the  Lateran  Council  of  Inno- 
cent III.  provided  for  the  extermination  of  the  Albigenses. 
Founded  upon  this  enlarged  and  extraordinary  jurisdiction 
and  the  subtle  reasoning  employed  to  maintain  it,  the  law 
of  the  Church  distinctly  lays  down  the  power  of  the  pope  to 
compel  obedience  from  us  all,  from  the  millions  of  Protest- 
ant people  in  the  United  States  who  have  vainly  supposed 
themselves  to  be  outside  of  his  jurisdiction.  It  says :  "  Bap- 
tized infidels,  such  as  heretics  and  apostates  usually  are,  also 
baptized  schismatics,  may  be  compelled,  even  by  corporal 
punishment,  to  return  to  the  Catholic  faith  and  the  unity  of 
the  Church.  The  reason  is,  because  these  by  baptism  have 
become  subject  to  the  Church;  and  therefore  the  Church 
has  jurisdiction  over  them,  and  the  power  of  compelling 
them  through  appointed  means  to  obedience,  and  to  fulfill 
the  obligations  contracted  in  baptism. "(^^) 

It  is  easy  now  to  understand  what  the  pope,  in  his  Sylla- 
bus, and  Archbishop  Manning,  in  his  pastoral,  mean  by  the 
right  of  the  Roman  Church  to  employ /brce  to  coerce  obedi- 
ence to  its  decrees.     With  them  the  jurisdiction  of  the  pa- 

(")  Alzog,  p.  424. 

(^®)  "  Infidelis  baptizati,  quales  esse  solent  Hseretici  et  Apostate,  item  Schis- 
matici  baptizati  cogi  possunt,  etiam  poenis  corporalibus,  ut  revertantur  ad  Fi- 
dem  Catholicam,  et  unitatem  Ecclesiae. 

"Ratio  est,  quod  isti  per  Baptismum  subditi  facti  sint  Ecclesiae:  adeoque 
Ecclesia  in  eos  jurisdictionem  habet  et  potestatem  eos  compellendi  per  media 
ordinata  ad  obedientiam,  et  ad  implendas  obligationes  in  Baptism©  contrac- 
tas."— Dens,  vol.  ii.,  No.  51,  p.  80. 


614  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

pacy  is  limited  only  by  the  boundaries  of  the  world,  and 
professing  Christians  of  every  creed  are  brought  within  the 
sweep  of  the  pontifical  sabre,  by  a  system  of  ecclesiastical 
law  and  ethics,  which,  built  up  in  ages  of  superstition  and 
ignorance,  they  are  now  seeking  to  revive.  They  admit 
no  compromise  and  practice  no  moderation.  Whatsoever 
stands  in  the  way  of  their  success  is  visited  with  the  pontif- 
ical wrath ;  and  anathemas  and  curses,  in  the  name  of  God, 
are  scattered  broadcast  over  the  world,  as  if  God  did  not 
delight  to  exhibit  himself  more  in  the  sunshine  than  in  the 
lightning  and  the  storm.  How  many  of  the  multitude  of 
criminals  upon  whom  the  sentence  of  condemnation  has  been 
already  pronounced  are  destined  to  pay  the  penalty  of  their 
disobedience,  and  how  many  shall  escape,  are  matters  con- 
cealed in  the  womb  of  the  future.  It  is  no  trifling  and  idle 
thing  for  nations  and  peoples  to  find  themselves  thus  plot- 
ted against.  Nor  is  it  a  trifling  and  idle  thing  for  the  peo- 
ple of  the  United  States  to  find  such  an  enemy,  with  drilled 
and  disciplined  troops,  in  the  very  midst  of  their  peaceful 
institutions.  Heretofore  they  have  not  failed  to  meet  the 
necessities  of  every  crisis  to  which  this  country  has  been 
subjected,  and  it  seems  impossible  that  they  can  remain  list- 
less and  indifi*erent  with  so  formidable  and  dangerous  an 
adversary  at  their  very  doors. 


THE  INFALLIBILITY  OF  THE  POPE.  615 


CHAPTER  XX. 

Infallibility  formerly  in  General  Councils  and  the  Popes  conjointly.— Eiforts 
made  to  prove  this  in  England  and  the  United  States. — Books  published 
on  the  Subject  in  both  Countries, — Extracts  from  Several  of  Them. — 
Doctrine  of  French  Christians  on  that  Subject. — They  deny  the  Infallibili- 
ty  of  the  Pope. — Proceedings  in  England  to  obtain  Catholic  Emancipa- 
tion.— The  Doctrine  denied  both  in  England  and  Ireland.  — The  Pope's 
Infallibility  a  new  Doctrine. — Denied  in  the  Catechism. — Distinction  be- 
tween the  Church  and  the  Papacy.— Infallibility  in  the  Church  during  the 
Early  Times. — The  Greeks  never  admitted  the  Infallibility  of  the  Pope. — 
The  First  Seven  Councils  mainly  Greek. — They  concede  Primacy  of  Hon- 
or, not  Jurisdiction,  to  the  Pope. — The  Council  of  Nice. — The  First  Coun- 
cil of  Constantinople.— The  Council  of  Ephesus. — The  Council  of  Chalce- 
don. — The  Second  Council  of  Constantinople. — The  Third  Council  of 
Constantinople. — The  Second  Council  of  Nice. — The  Fourth  Council  of 
Constantinople.  —  Subsequent  Councils  held  by  the  Latins.  —  The  First 
Lateran  Council. — The  Second  Lateran  Council. — The  Third  Lateran 
Council. — The  Introduction  of  Papal  Constitutions. — Adding  them  to  De- 
crees of  Councils. — More  Effort  to  make  Law  for  the  Church  by  the  Force 
of  Precedent. — The  Fourth  Lateran  Council. — Blindly  obedient  to  Inno- 
cent HI. — The  Primacy  of  the  Church,  not  of  the  Pope,  established. — 
Constitutions  of  Heretical  Princes  not  Binding. — Part  of  the  Canon  Law. 
— The  First  Council  of  Lyons.  —  The  Second  Council  of  Lyons.  —  The 
Council  of  Vienne. — None  of  these  Councils  declare  the  Pope  Infallible. 

It  ought  not  to  be  considered  as  asking  too  much  of  those 
who  support  the  absolutism  of  the  papacy,  when  we  insist 
that  they  shall  address  themselves  to  our  consciences  in  fur- 
nishing a  solution  of  the  problem  involved  in  the  claim  of 
the  pope's  infallibility.  It  concerns  the  present  age  of  the 
world  too  much,  to  let  it  rest  upon  the  mere  assertion  that 
because  it  has  been  dogmatically  avowed  by  a  number  of 
popes,  therefore  it  is  true.  Such  persons  as  have  been  trained 
in  the  school  of  submission,  and  accept  whatsoever  is  told 
them  by  their  superiors,  may  be  satisfied  with  this ;  but  to 
those  who  recognize  no  obligation  of  this  nature,  something 
more  is  due  if  they  are  expected  ta  acquiesce  in  it.     "No 


616  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

man,"  said  Archbishop  Tillotson,  "can  be  under  an  obli- 
gation to  believe  any  thing  who  hath  not  suflScient  means 
whereby  he  may  be  assured  that  such  a  thing  is  true." 

Yet,  when  the  objection  is  urged  that  this  dogma  places 
the  papacy  in  direct  antagonism  to  the  domestic  policy  of 
the  progressive  nations,  we  are  told — as  if  it  were  a  complete 
answer — that  there  is  nothing  new  in  this ;  that  it  is  a  part 
of  the  ancient  faith,  descending  from  Peter,  and  which  has 
known  no  variation  from  the  beginning.  Thus  the  whole 
question  is  rested ;  and  we  are  required  to  give  our  assent, 
or  remain  under  the  pontifical  curse  if  we  do  not.(^) 

It  has  been  elsewhere  asserted  that  before  the  late  coun- 
cil the  infallibility  of  the  Church  was  generally  recognized 
by  its  lay  members,  especially  in  the  United  States,  as  lodged 
in  the  whole  body  of  the  Church,  acting,  according  to  the  un- 
varying custom,  through  general  councils  and  the  popes  con- 
jointly. Even  if  the  hierarchy  thought  otherwise,  they  stu- 
diously avoided  any  open  declaration  to  that  effect,  leaving 
those  to  whom  it  was  their  duty  to  teach  the  whole  truth  in 
ignorance  and  delusion.  There  were  even  some  of  them  who 
were  not  only  guilty  of  this  unpardonable  sin  of  omission, 
but  actually  misled  their  flocks  into  the  acceptance  of  a  fa- 
tal error.  And  others,  who  did  not  go  so  far,  silently  acqui- 
esced in  the  imposture. 

About  twenty  years  ago  there  was  published  and  exten- 
sively circulated  in  the  United  States  a  work  devoted  to  the 
discussion  of  the  question  of  "  Church  authority" — the  pre- 
cise question  involved  in  the  dogma  of  papal  infallibility. 
It  was  written  by  a  former  clergyman  of  the  English  Church, 
who  had  gone  over  to  the  Roman,  as  an  explanation  of  his 
reasons  for  so  doing.  Starting  out  by  defining  the  word  ec- 
clesia  to  mean  any  combination  of  men,  he  insists  that  in  that 
sense  the  Church  was  established  by  Christ  with  the  office 
of  deciding  what  is  human  and  what  divine,  and  of  interpret- 

(')  The  whole  substance  of  Archbishop  Manning's  reply  to  Mr.  Gladstone 
is  centred  in  his  second  and  third  propositions,  set  forth  in  his  letter  to  the 
editor  of  the  New  York  Herald,  to  wit,  "that  the  Vatican  Council  an- 
nounced no  new  dogma,  but  simply  declared  an  old  truth,  "and  that  the  civil 
allegiance  of  Roman  Catholics,  "  since  the  council,  is  precisely  what  it  was  be- 
fore."—iVew  York  Tablet,  December  21st,  1874,  p.  405. 


THE  INFALLIBILITY  OF  COUNCILS.  617 

ing  the  system  of  which  it  is  the  depository. (')  He  then  pro- 
ceeds to  instruct  us  what  the  Church  is,  where  it  is  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  always  present,  and  where  this  power  of  inter- 
pretation is  lodged.  He  proves  by  Irenaeus,  Origen,  and  oth- 
er Others  that  "the  divine  spirit"  which  directs  the  Church 
"has  its  dwelling  in  the  collective  body,"  which  "is  our  sole 
guide  in  the  things  of  God."(^)  He  defines  "the  collective 
episcopate"  to  be  "  the  medium  of  Church  authority,"  and  in- 
sists that  Christ  provided  for  the  Church, "as  the  law  of  its 
organization,  that  the  same  persons  [the  bishops]  who  were 

(')  The  Greek  word  ecclesia  was  in  use  in  that  language  before  the  birth 
of  Christ.  Liddell  and  Scott,  in  their  lexicon,  define  it  to  mean  "an  as- 
sembly of  the  citizens  summoned  by  the  crier,  the  legislative  assembly." 
Potter  says  it  was  "an  assembly  of  the  people  met  together  according  to 
law  to  consult  about  the  good  of  the  commonwealth." — Antiquities  of  Greece, 
eh.  xvii.,  p.  81.  In  the  "  Encyclopedia  of  Religious  Knowledge  "  it  is  said  to 
denote  "an  assembly  called  together  upon  business,  whether  lawful  or  un- 
lawful." Thucydides  used  it  to  signify  an  assembly. — Bloomjield's  Thucy el- 
ides, bk.  vi.,  §  viii.,  p.  19,  and  bk.  Ixix.,  p.  338,  vol.  iii.  It  occurs  frequently 
in  the  New  Testament,  and  is  generally  translated  church.  But  a  different 
rendering  is  given  to  it,  both  in  the  Douay  (Roman  Catholic)  and  Protestant 
Bibles,  where  it  occurs  in  Acts  xix.,  32,  39,  at  both  of  which  places  it  is 
translated  assembly.  In  several  of  the  earlier  versions  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, the  translation  given  it  in  Matthew  xvi.,  18,  was  congregation :  "  Upon 
this  rock  I  will  build  my  congregation."  But  this  was  not  satisfactory  to  the 
Romanists,  because  it  did  not  sufficiently  convey  the  idea  of  an  ecclesiastical 
organization  with  external  authority.  They  therefore  repudiated  this  transla- 
tion, and  adhered  to  the  meaning  attached  by  Jerome  to  the  Latin  word  ec- 
clesiam,  when  he  introduced  it  into  his  "Vulgate"  edition.  When  the  revis- 
ion was  made  in  the  reign  of  King  James,  he  seems  to  have  had  some  fear 
that  the  translators  would  introduce  congregation  instead  of  church,  and  thus 
favor  the  popular  idea  in  opposition  to  ecclesiastical  authority.  He  therefore 
caused  to  be  drawn  up  a  series  of  rules  for  their  direction,  in  one  of  which  he 
instructed  them  as  follows:  "The  old  ecclesiastical  words  to  be  kept,  viz.  : 
the  word  church  not  to  be  translated  congregation,"  etc. — History  of  the  Bi- 
ble, by  Westcott,  ch.  ii.,  p.  151. 

It  would  thus  seem  that  the  word  ecclesia,  though  translated  church,  was 
intended  by  Christ  to  mean  a  body  of  believers  assembled  together  at  a  par- 
ticular place,  or  the  whole  body  of  Christians  in  general  assembling  by  repre- 
sentation, as  they  did  at  Jerusalem  when  Paul  and  Barnabas  went  up  from 
Antioch.  To  say,  therefore,  that  it  is  composed  of  an  organization  with  ex- 
ternal powers,  and  that  Christ's  design  in  establishing  his  Church  was  that 
there  should  be  a  pope  and  a  body  of  privileged  ecclesiastics  to  govern  it,  is  a 
manifest  perversion  of  its  original  meaning. 

O  "  Principles  of  Church  Authority,"  by  Wil'jerforce,  pp.  27,  47,  61,  65. 


618  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

individually  the  dispensers  of  grace  should  collectively  be 
the  witnesses  to  doctrine."(*)  And  then,  in  flat  denial  of  pa- 
pal infallibility,  if  not  of  the  primacy  of  Peter,  he  declares 
that  this  principle  of  Church  organization  "  proceeds  on  the 
supposition  that  the  gift  bestowed  upon  the  apostles,  and 
which  had  been  inherited  by  their  successors,  had  been  given 
to  them  as  a  body ;  that  no  bishop  or  bishops  could  possess 
it  apart  from  the  communion  of  the  whole ;  that  as  grace  and 
truth  lay  in  Christ  our  Lord,  and  afterward  in  the  college  of 
apostles,  so  it  had  been  inherited  by  the  whole  episcopate  as 
a  trust,  in  which  they  had  a  common  share." (^)  That  this 
principle  has  received  the  approbation  of  all  the  ages  since 
Christ,  he  considers  "  manifest  from  the  weight  attached  to 
general  councils."  He  quotes  this  language  from  Cyprian : 
"  The  episcopate  is  a  single  trust  administered  collectively 
by  many  individuals."  And  this  from  the  Apostolic  Consti- 
tutions :  "  For  the  confirmation  of  you  who  are  put  in  trust 
with  tlie  universal  episcopate."  This  episcopate  he  calls  by 
the  equivalent  names  of  the  "  one  Church  "  of  Christ,  "  the 
federal  union,"  and  "the   sacerdotal  college."      And  then, 

summing  up,  he  says:  " these  principles  evidently  imply 

that  the  interpretation  of  doctrine  was  lodged  as  a  perpetual 
trust  in  the  episcopate,  but  the  exercise  of  this  function  im- 
plied the  co-operation  of  all  bishops  as  a  collective  whole."^) 
It  would  be  hard  to  find  language  more  directly  condem- 
natory of  the  doctrine  of  papal  infallibility  than  this.  Not 
only  does  it  show  that  no  such  doctrine  prevailed  in  the 
early  ages  of  the  Church,  but  that  it  is  in  express  conflict 
with  "the  law  of  its  organization"  as  ordained  by  Christ. 
The  writer  was  highly  complimented  for  the  manner  in 
which  he  performed  his  task,  and  for  the  learning  he  dis- 
played. He  was  considered  as  a  valuable  acquisition  to  the 
Church,  and,  doubtless,  one  object  in  circulating  his  book 
was  to  influence  hesitating  Protestants,  if  they  could  be 
found,  by  his  argument.  Another  object  undoubtedly  was 
to  disprove  what  many  Protestants  considered  the  tendency 
toward  papal  infallibility  in  the  Church.     And  still  another, 


C)  "Principles  of  Church  Authority,"  by  Wilberforce,  pp.  77,  84, 89, 92, 98. 
(')  Ibid. ,  p.  103.  C)  Ibid. ,  pp.  103, 104, 107, 108. 


INFALLIBILITY  OF  THE  POPE  DENIED.  619 

to  quiet  any  apprehension  that  might  exist  among  the  lay- 
men of  the  Church  in  regard  to  the  threatened  concentra- 
tion of  all  the  power  of  the  Church  in  the  hands  of  the  pope. 
It  may  be  readily  called  to  mind,  by  almost  any  body,  how 
flatly,  and  even  spitefully,  it  was  denied  that  any  such  con- 
centration was  designed ;  as  it  may  now  be  realized  how 
this  denial  served  to  mislead  many  who  find  themselves  de- 
luded. This  book  was  only  one  of  the  many  instrumentali- 
ties employed  to  carry  on  this  work.  Having  performed  its 
task,  it  is  now  consigned  to  obscure  places  where  the  dust 
and  cobweb  may  settle  on  it ;  while  the  faithful  are  instruct- 
ed that  the  very  doctrine  it  denied  and  condemned  has  al- 
ways been  the  doctrine  of  the  Church ! 

Another  book  was  published  a  few  years  ago,  written  by  a 
priest,  designed  to  show  that  "  the  father  of  lies  "  had  circu- 
lated misrepresentations  and  calumnies  against  the  Church 
in  this  country.  In  reference  to  "new  additions"  to  the 
faith,  he  says,  it  would  be  "damnable"  to  believe  otherwise 
than  as  Christ  teaches,  although  it  "  should  be  defined  and 
commanded  to  be  believed  by  ten  thousand  councils."  And, 
answering  the  accusation  that  the  pastors  and  prelates  are 
held  to  be  infallible,  he  classes  it  along  with  other  "  misrep- 
resentations "  of  which  "  the  father  of  lies  "  is  the  author,  and 
says :  "  The  papist,  truly  represented,  believes  that  the  pas- 
tors and  prelates  of  his  Church  are  fallible;  that  there  is 
none  of  them  but  what  may  fall  into  error  and  heresies,  and 
consequently  liable  to  be  deceived."  And  he  assigns  infal- 
libility only  to  "  the  whole  Church."0 

Coming  at  last  to  the  pope,  he  says  that  it  is  an  exhibi- 
tion of  the  "  black  art "  which  the  devil  practiced  in  para- 
dise, to  charge  the  papist  with  believing  that  he  has  taken 
the  place  of  Christ,  "and  that  whatsoever  he  orders,  decrees, 
or  commands  is  to  be  received  by  his  flock  with  the  same 
respect,  submission,  and  awe  as  if  Christ  had  spoken  it  by 
his  own  mouth,"  or  that  he  is  "  no  longer  liable  to  error,  but 
is  infallible."  He  indignantly  repels  the  insulting  and  impi- 
ous falsehood,  as  the  devil's  work,  and  declares  that  the  pope 

(')  "  A  Papist  Misrepresented  and  Represented,"  by  Rev.  John  Gother, 
pp.  44-46. 


620  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

is  the  head  of  the  Church  only  as  "  every  father  of  a  family 
owns  himself  to  be  master  of  it  under  Christ ;"  and  that, 
while  God  assists  the  popes  in  the  administration  of  their 
office,  no  man  is  "  obliged  to  believe  them  infallible,^''  because 
no  such  doctrine  has  ever  been  defined  by  the  Church.  (") 

There  was  yet  another  book  of  this  same  kind,  published 
with  the  official  indorsement  of  Bishop  Fitzpatrick,  of  Bos- 
ton, who  certainly  was  fully  instructed  in  the  doctrines  of 
his  Church.  The  author  of  this  book  meets  the  question  of 
papal  infallibility  squarely,  and  disposes  of  it  without  equiv- 
ocation ;  manifestly  intending  to  put  it  at  rest,  so  that  his 
adversary  should  have  no  excuse  for  again  referring  to  it. 
That  there  may  be  no  misconception  of  his  meaning,  the 
whole  of  what  he  said  is  given  as  follows : 

"I  shall  therefore  tell  the  gentleman,  once  for  all,  and  in 
the  clearest  terms  I  am  able  to  express  myself,  that  when 
you  speak  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  and  maintain  it 
to  be  that  infallible  Church  which  Christ  has  established 
upon  earth,  and  to  which  all  his  promises  of  perpetual  as- 
sistance were  made,  we  mean  not  the  particular  Church  or 
diocese  of  Rome,  which,  as  a  diocese  has  its  jurisdiction  lim- 
ited, and  is  no  more  the  Universal  Church  than  the  diocese 
of  Paris  or  Toledo — because  a  part  is  not  the  whole ;  but 
we  mean  the  whole  body  of  Roman  Catholics,  whatsoever 
country  or  diocese  they  belong  to,  professing  the  same  faith, 
and  living  in  communion  with  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  whom 
they  acknowledge  to  be  their  supreme  pastor,  or  head  of 
their  Church  on  earth.  This  is  plain  English;  and,  if* the 
gentleman  will  not  understand  it,  but  persists  in  his  real  or 
pretended  ignorance,  and  to  impose  upon  his  reader  with  a 
manifest  equivocation,  I  can  say  no  more  to  render  him  sen- 
sible of  his  mistake. 

"  I  observe,  fourthly,  that  the  gentleman  has  sometimes  a 
great  itching  to  shift  the  state  of  the  question  from  the  in- 
fallibility of  the  Church  to  that  of  the  pope.  Nay,  he  tells 
his  lordship  in  plain  terms  *  that  not  to  place  the  infallibili- 
ty in  the  pope  is  giving  up  our  whole  foundation.'     I  am 


(")  "A  Papist  Misrepresented  and  Represented,"  by  Rev.  John  Gother, 
pp.  49-51. 


EFFORTS  OF  THE  JESUITS  IN  FRANCE.  621 

sorry  he  understands  the  doctrine  of  our  Church  no  better, 
which  he  ought  to  have  done  before  he  wrote  against  it. 
For,  as  a  controvertist,  he  ought  only  to  dispute  against  ar- 
ticles of  our  faith  fairly  stated^  and  not  against  private  opin- 
ions. Now,  the  infallibility  of  the  pope  is  one  of  these. 
Some  Catholic  divines  write  for  it,  and  many  against  it,  with- 
out any  breach  of  communion  with  the  See  of  Rome.  And 
therefore  the  gentleman  shall  have  the  liberty  of  talking  by 
himself  upon  that  subject  as  much  as  he  pleases;  for  I  am 
not  bound  to  answer  any  thing  wherein  the  article  of  faith 
which  I  pretend  to  maintain  is  not  concerned."('') 

Language  more  expressive  could  scarcely  have  been  found. 
It  will  be  observed  that  he  not  only  lodges  infallibility  in 
the  whole  body  of  the  Church,  but  denies  flatly  the  doctrine 
of  the  pope's  infallibility.  Some  divines  favor  it,  he  says, 
but  many  oppose  it;  clearly  signifying  that  the  latter  con- 
stitute the  majority.  When  it  is  considered  that  all  this 
was  specially  approved  by  a  distinguished  prelate  of  the 
Church,  it  may  be  regarded  as  a  sufficient  set-ofi*  against 
the  contrary  assertions  now  so  frequently  and  dogmatically 
made. 

But  there  is  abundant  evidence,  equally  conclusive  and 
satisfactory,  to  show  that  this  question  was  met  and  dealt 
with  in  Europe  in  the  same  way,  from  the  very  earliest  ef- 
forts of  the  Jesuits  to  keep  the  popes  on  their  side  by  its 
persistent  and  pertinacious  advocacy.  A  thesis  was  pub- 
lished in  Paris,  in  the  seventeenth  century,  wherein  it  was 
claimed  that  Christ  had  communicated  his  own  infallibility 
to  the  pope,  both  in  questions  of  right  and  of  fact.  This 
thesis  was  immediately  laid  before  all  the  bishops  of  France ; 
it  being  well  understood  that  it  came  from  the  college  of  the 
Jesuits.  Another  soon  after  appeared  from  the  same  source, 
not  merely  affirming  what  the  first  contained,  but  insisting 
that  the  system  of  Copernicus,  as  defended  by  Galileo,  should 
be  considered  as  battered  down,  because  "  the  Vatican  has 
also  thundered  against  it,  and  the  sentence  delivered  by  the 
congregation  of  the  Cardinals  of  the  Inquisition  has  over- 

C)  "  The  Shortest  Way  to  end  Disputes  about  Religion,"  by  the  Rev.  Rob- 
ert Mnnning,  Boston,  1855,  pp.  189, 190. 


622  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

thrown  by  its  just  censure  the  hypothesis,  or  rather  the 
thesis,  of  Copernicus  in  the  person  of  Galileo."  The  avowed 
purpose  was  to  carry  the  doctrine  of  the  pope's  infallibility 
to  the  extent  of  requiring  "  some  mathematicians,  more  bold 
than  religious,"  who  accepted  the  Copernican  theory  and 
the  teachings  of  Galileo,  to  "  submit  to  the  authority  of  this 
censure."  This  thesis  was  submitted  to  the  learned  Faculty 
of  Divinity  of  Paris.  The  Parliament  of  Paris  also  took  the 
matter  into  consideration.  It  was  thus  brought  directly  be- 
fore the  whole  country,  and  presented  in  such  form  as  to  in- 
voke all  the  best  intellects  of  France  in  its  consideration. 
The  result  was  a  strong  and  decided  affirmance  of  the  doc- 
trines set  forth  in  the  ancient  decrees  of  the  Faculty  of  Di- 
vinity, which  were  embodied  in  six  distinct  propositions. 
1.  It  is  denied  that  the  pope  has  any  indirect  power  or  au- 
thority over  the  temporalities  of  the  king.  2.  That  the  king 
has  no  other  superior  in  temporals  than  God  alone.  8.  That 
subjects  owe  such  allegiance  to  the  king  that  it  can  not  be 
dispensed  with  upon  any  pretense  whatsoever.  4.  That  the 
pope  can  not  depose  bishops  against  the  rules  of  the  canons. 
5.  That  the  pope  is  not  above  a  general  council.  6.  That  the 
pope  is  not  infallible,  when  he  has  not  the  concurring  con- 
sent of  the  Church.  ('-) 
The  opinion  of  these  leading  minds  of  France,  so  clearly 

Q^)  1.  *'Non  esse  Doctrinam  Facultatis  quod  Summus  Pontifex  aliquam 
in  temporalia  Regis  Christianissimi  authoritatem  habeat ;  imo  Facultatem 
semper  obstitisse  etiam  iis  qui  indirectam  tantum  esse  illam  authoritatem 
voluerunt. 

2.  **Esse  Doctrinam  Facultatis  ejusdem,  quod  Rex  Christianissimus  nul- 
lum omnino  agnoscit  nee  habet  in  temporalibus  superiorem  praeter  Deum ; 
eamque  suam  esse  antiquam  Doctrinam,  a  qua  nunquam  recessura  est. 

3.  "Doctrinam  Facultatis  esse  quod  subditi  Fidem  et  Obedientiam  Regi 
Christianissimo  ita  debeant,  ut  ab  iis  nullo  prajtextu  dispensari  possint. 

4.  "Doctrinam  Facultatis  esse  non  probare,  nee  unquam  probasse  Propo- 
sitiones  uUas  Regis  Christianissimi  Author! tate  aut  germanis  Ecclesia  Galli- 
canae  libertatibus,  et  receptis  in  Regno  Canonibus  contrarias;  v.  g.,  quod 
Summus  Pontifex  possit  deponere  Episcopos  adversus  easdem  Canones. 

5.  "Doctrinam  Facultatis  non  esse,  gwoc?  Summtis  Pontifex  sit  supra  Con- 
cilium (Ecumenicum. 

6.  "  Non  esse  Doctrinam  vel  Dogma  Facultatis,  quod  Summus  Pontifex, 
nullo  accedente  Ecclesice  consensu,  sit  injallibilis." — Ecclesiastical  History, 
by  Du  Pin,  vol.  xvii.,  pp.  146-150. 


JESUIT  DOCTRINES  CONDEMNED.  623 

and  strongly  expressed,  shows,  beyond  all  controversy,  what 
was  the  opinion  of  the  Galilean  Christians  on  this  subject. 
The  Jesuits  were  not  able  to  drive  them  from  their  position, 
and,  therefore,  when  Bossuet,  the  great  Bishop  of  Meaux, 
who  stood  at  their  head,  undertook  to  define  the  relation 
between  sovereigns  and  the  popes,  he  said  "  that  kings  and 
princes  are  not  subject  in  the  temporal  order  to  any  ecclesi- 
astical power  by  the  order  of  God ;  that  they  can  not  be 
deposed,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  by  virtue  of  the  keys 
of  the  Church  ;  finally,  that  by  virtue  of  that  power,  their 
subjects  can  not  be  absolved  from  their  fidelity,  obedience, 
and  oath  of  allegiance  which  bind  them  to  their  prince."(") 
The  oath  of  supremacy  and  allegiance  which  the  English 
law,  during  the  reign  of  James  I.,  required  Roman  Catholics 
to  take,  made  it  necessary  they  should  swear  that,  in  their 
opinion,  the  pope  had  no  power  to  depose  the  king,  or  to 
dispose  of  the  kingdom,  or  to  authorize  its  invasion,  or  to 
discharge  the  citizens  from  their  allegiance.  With  them  it 
became  a  question  whether,  in  view  of  their  obligations  to 
the  pope,  they  could  lawfully  take  this  oath.  They  were 
not  left  in  doubt  long,  in  so  far  as  the  pope,  Paul  V.,  was 
concerned ;  for  he  addressed  to  them  a  brief  which  con- 
demned "  the  oath  as  unlawful,  and  containing  many  things 
manifestly  contrary  to  faith  and  to  salvation."  He  address- 
ed them  also  a  second  brief  of  the  same  tenor ;  and  Innocent 
X.,  after  the  death  of  Paul,  condemned  the  oath  anew.  In 
this  perplexed  condition,  arising  out  of  their  divided  loyal- 
ty, they  consulted  the  Faculty  of  Divinity  of  Paris  whether 
they  could,  in  their  opinion,  take  the  oath  without  prejudice 
to  the  faith,  and  this  after  two  infallible  popes  had  declared 
solemnly  and  ofiicially,  ex  cathedra^  that  they  could  not. 
The  sixty  doctors  of  the  Faculty  declared,  against  these 
popes,  that  they  could  take  the  oath  without  prejudice  to 
the  faith  ;  and  they  did  take  it.  The  Jesuits,  of  course,  were 
not  satisfied  at  this  direct  and  powerful  opposition  to  their 
favorite  theory  of  the  pope's  infallibility ;  and  they  had  no 
difficulty  in  having  this  opinion  of  the  French  doctors  placed 


(")  "Defense  of  the  Declaration, " by  Bossuet,  lib.  i.,  s.  1.,  ch.  xvi.,  pp. 
272,  273.     Apud  Gosselin,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  299,  3Q0. 


624  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

upon  the  Index  at  Rome,  so  as  to  stamp  it  with  pontifical 
condemnation  and  censure.('') 

The  same  question  arose  afterward  in  England,  at  a  period 
nearer  our  own  times.  When,  toward  the  close  of  the  last 
century,  the  question  of  Catholic  emancipation  was  pending 
before  the  British  Parliament,  it  was  doubted  by  many 
whether  it  would  be  safe  to  confer  full  political  privileges 
upon  Roman  Catholics  because  of  the  doctrines  of  the  papa- 
cy in  regard  to  their  allegiance.  Strong  efibrts  were  made 
to  remove  this  doubt,  and,  as  the  most  efficient  means  of  do- 
ing so,  the  opinions  of  learned  divines  and  foreign  universi- 
ties were  solicited  directly  upon  the  questions  of  the  power 
of  the  pope  to  depose  monarchs,  and  to  release  their  subjects 
from  allegiance,  and  the  obligation  of  papists  to  keep  faith 
with  heretics.  Three  questions,  embracing  these  points, 
were  sent  to  the  universities  of  Louvain,  Douay,  and  Paris, 
in  France;  and  Alcala, Valladolid,  and  Salamanca,  in  Spain. 
The  answers  were  all  condemnatory  of  the  doctrine  of  papal 
infallibility.  In  that  from  Douay,  taken  as  a  specimen,  it  is 
said :  "  That  no  power  whatsoever,  in  civil  or  temporal  con- 
cerns, was  given  by  the  Almighty  either  to  the  pope,  the 
cardinals,  or  the  Church  herself;  and  consequently  that  kings 
and  sovereigns  are  not,  in  temporal  concerns,  subject  by  the 
ordination  of  God  to  any  ecclesiastical  power  whatsoever; 
neither  can  their  subjects,  by  any  authority  granted  to  the 
pope  or  the  Church  from  above,  be  freed  from  their  obedi- 
ence or  absolved  from  their  oath  of  allegiance."  And  they 
declared  that  they  were  bound  to  keep  all  oaths,  whether 
pledged  to  "  Catholic,  heretic,  or  infidel."  These  doctrines 
were  also  asserted,  in  1792,  by  a  Roman  Catholic  committee 
in  Ireland,  acting  for  and  in  the  name  of  all  their  country- 
men of  that  faith.  And  when,  long  afterward,  in"  1826,  the 
three  Irish  bishops,  Murray,  Doyle,  and  Kelley,  were  exam- 
ined before  the  British  House  of  Commons  on  this  same  sub- 
ject, they  also  unanimously  affirmed  the  doctrines  set  forth 
by  the  universities.  (") 

(")  Gosselin,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  252,  253  (note). 

(")  "Papal  Conspiracy  Exposed,"  by  Dr.  Edward  Beecher,  pp.  36-40. 
Mr.  Gladstone  gives  the  evidence  of  Bishop  Doyle.  When  asked  by  the 
committee  whether  the  obligation  of  the  Roman  Catholic  to  obey  the  pope, 


THE  POPE'S  INFALLIBILITY  PENIED.  625 

If  the  question  then  to  be  decided  had  been,  whether  or 
not  the  popes  themselves  had  claimed  and  asserted  their 
own  infallibility,  these  inquiries  would  have  been  entirely 
useless.  That  a  very  large  number  of  them  had  done  so, 
directly  and  most  explicitly,  was  well  understood.  The  ob- 
ject of  the  inquiries,  however,  was  to  ascertain  whether  or 
not  the  claim  they  set  up  was  recognized  by  the  Church  as 
a  part  of  its  faith — whether  or  not  their  frequent  repetition 
of  the  claim  gave  it  the  binding  force  of  law  to  the  whole 
Church.  Like  all  other  aspiring  and  ambitious  rulers,  they 
endeavored,  at  all  times,  to  extend  their  power,  and  omit- 
ted no  argument  necessary  to  maintain  it.  Nor  were  they 
ever  known  to  abate  their  pretensions.  On  the  other  hand, 
by  including  the  deposing  power  in  the  spiritual,  they  had 
enlarged  the  limits  of  their  jurisdiction  so  as  to  embrace  the 
world.  Hence,  it  became  necessary  to  know  to  what  extent 
the  faith  of  the  Church  had  been  influenced  by  these  exorbi- 
tant demands ;  for  the  plain  reason  that  if  the  assertion  of 
this  enormous  power,  frequently  repeated,  by  any  number  of 
popes,  had  ingrafted  the  doctrine  of  papal  infallibility  upon 
the  canons  of  the  Church,  so  that  the  whole  membership 
were  bound  to  accept  it  as  a  necessary  part  of  the  faith, 
then  it  was  undoubted  that  the  obligation  of  allegiance  to 
the  pope  was  higher  and  more  binding  than  that  to  any 
nation  on  earth.  Therefore  it  was  necessary  to  ascertain 
whether  the  Roman  Catholics  of  England  and  Ireland  adopt- 
ed or  repudiated  this  kind  of  faith,  so  that  Parliament  could 
decide  advisedly  whether  they  should  or  should  not  be  al- 
lowed to  share  in  the  management  of  public  aifairs.  It 
would  be  unjust,  in  the  absence  of  all  evidence  to  that  ef- 

divided  his  allegiance  so  as  to  interfere  with  that  he  owed  to  the  State,  he 
replied : 

"  I  do  not  think  it  does  in  any  way.  We  are  bound  to  obey  the  pope  in 
those  things  that  I  have  already  mentioned — [that  is,  in  matters  concerning 
"religious  faith"  and  "ecclesiastical  discipline"].  But  our  obedience  to 
the  law,  and  the  allegiance  which  we  owe  the  sovereign,  are  complete,  and 
full,  and  perfect,  and  undivided,  inasmuch  as  they  extend  to  all  political,  le- 
gal, and  civil  rights  of  the  king  or  of  his  subjects.  I  think  the  allegiance 
due  to  the  king  and  the  allegiance  due  to  the  pope  are  as  distinct  and  as  di- 
vided in  their  nature  as  any  two  things  can  possibly  6e." — New  York  Trib- 
une, November  24th,  1874. 

40 


626  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

feet,  to  say  that  they  acted  with  duplicity  by  concealing 
their  real  belief.  However  this  may  have  been,  the  answers 
were  satisfactory,  and  the  bill  for  Catholic  emancipation  ul- 
timately became  a  law.  The  object  they  desired  was  ac- 
complished. (^*) 

If  we  are  to  decide  upon  the  existence  of  facts  not  within 
our  personal  knowledge,  by  the  settled  and  common-sense 
rules  of  evidence,  it  must  be  accepted  as  established,  beyond 
contradiction,  that,  at  the  times  referred  to,  the  Roman  Cath- 
olics of  the  United  States,  France,  England,  and  Ireland  not 
only  did  not  accept  papal  infallibility  as  a  part  of  their  re- 
ligious faith,  but  positively  denied  it.  They  constituted  a 
very  large  portion  of  the  Roman  Catholic  world  ;  so  large 
a  portion  that  it  would  be  absolute  folly  to  talk  about  the 
universality  of  any  dogma  of  faith  which  was  rejected  by 
them.  In  France  especially,  notwithstanding  Protestantism 
was  tolerated,  the  Government  was  Roman  Catholic;  and 
to  say  that  it  could  remain  so,  and  reject  so  important  a 
dogma  as  this,  would  amount  to  the  impeachment  of  the  in- 
tegrity of  the  pope  for  not  condemning  it,  and  of  the  intelli- 
gence and  piety  of  those  who  did  so.  And  in  Ireland,  as  is 
well  known,  there  has  been,  for  several  centuries,  such  devo- 
tion to  the  true  faith,  that  no  shadow  of  doubt  has  ever  rest- 
ed upon  the  loyalty  of  its  Roman  Catholic  people  to  Rome. 
Shall  we  not  accept  all  these  people,  then,  as  denying  the 
pope's  infallibility  ?  If  they  truthfully  declared  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Church  on  this  subject,  has  not  the  dogma  of 
the  late  Council  prescribed  a  new  article  of  faith  ?  Mani- 
festly, it  has  declared  that  to  be  the  faith  which,  before  its 
passage,  was  not  the  faith.  Then  it  was  not  heresy  to  deny 
it;  now  it  is.  Then  a  Roman  Catholic  could  believe  it  or 
not,  as  seemed  fit  to  him ;  now  he  is  anathematized  if  he 
does  not  believe  it.  It  has  changed  his  relations  to  the 
Church,  and  to  the  country  in  which  he  resides.  It  super- 
adds to  his  obligation  of  allegiance  to  his  country  the  obli- 
gation of  a  higher  allegiance  to  the  pope.  It  subordinates 
his  national  citizenship  to  his  citizenship  of  a  great  ecclesi- 

(")  Any  body  who  will  examine  the  doctrines  of  the  Gallican  Church  in 
France  will  see  that  the  opinions  here  expressed  agree  precisely  with  them. 


CHANGE  OF  FAITH.  627 

astical  empire.  It  changes  the  orthodox  faith  into  heresy. 
It  takes  away  the  right  of  individual  opinion  upon  the  very 
question  involved,  and  denies  any  further  exercise  of  reason. 
And  carrying  along  with  it  all  the  consequences  which  the 
popes  have  claimed  as  involved  in  their  infallibility,  it  re- 
quires the  Church  to  accept,  for  the  first  time,  as  an  abso- 
lutely necessary  part  of  its  faith,  the  equality  of  the  pope 
with  God  in  the  government  of  all  human  affairs,  within  the 
extensive  domain  of  faith  and  morals.  Is  not  all  this  new  ? 
We  may  readily  agree  that  it  is  not  so  to  the  popes,  who, 
like  other  ambitious  men,  are  ever  ready  to  assert  doctrines 
designed  to  increase  and  consolidate  their  power.  That  is 
not  the  question,  any  more  than  it  is  now  a  question  to  de- 
cide whether  kings,  by  the  persistent  assertion  of  the  "  di- 
vine right "  to  govern,  have  established  a  principle  of  law 
by  which  all  mankind  are  to  be,  now  and  forever,  held  in 
subjugation  by  them.  The  question  is,  whether  it  is  not 
new  as  the  doctrine  of  the  Church.  How  can  it  be  other- 
wise, when  the  Universal  Church  never  assented  to  it — when 
no  council  ever  declared  it  as  it  is  now  declared — and  when 
at  least  one  ecumenical  council  has  expressly  asserted  pre- 
cisely the  reverse  ?  The  claim  is  not  new,  for  the  popes  and 
the  Jesuits  have  repeatedly  asserted  it — but  the  doctrine  is ; 
and  it  is  only  as  doctrine  that  it  becomes  part  of  the  faith. 
If,  then,  it  is  faith  for  the  first  time,  it  is  new  faith,  neces- 
sarily. 

But  is  it  faith  for  the  first  time  ?  The  catechisms  of  the 
Church  answer  this.  Previous  to  the  late  Lateran  Council, 
there  was  an  authorized  version  of  catechism  circulated  in 
England  which  had  the  sanction  of  the  highest  authorities 
of  the  Church,  including  Dr.  Manning,  the  great  Archbishop 
of  Westminster,  wherein  the  following  question  and  answer 
are  found : 

"§.  Are  not  Catholics  bound  to  believe  the  pope  in  him- 
self to  be  infallible  ?" 

"^.  This  is  a  Protestant  invention^  and  is  no  article  of  the 
Catholic  faith."('') 


Q^)  Apud  Bishop  Coxe,  of  Western  New  York,  in  his  pamphlet  entitled 
Catholics  and  Old  Catholics,"  p.  15. 


628  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

And  confirmatory  of  the  fact  that  it  was  not  an  article  of 
faith  before  the  enactment  of  the  dogma  to  that  effect,  it  is 
well  understood  that  a  considerable  number  of  the  bishops 
petitioned  the  pope  not  to  submit  to  the  council  his  infalli- 
bility as  a  dogma  of  faith.  Of  these  there  were  five  arch- 
bishops and  twenty-two  bishops  from  America.  (^^) 


('^)  While  the  council  was  in  session,  Archbishop  Purcell,  of  Cincinnati, 
addressed  to  Archbishop  Dupanloup,  of  Orleans,  France,  a  letter,  wherein  he 
says :  "  The  American  prelates  have  especial  reason  to  hesitate  upon  the  ques- 
tion of  pontifical  infallibility.  Neither  Catholics  nor  Protestants  in  our  coun- 
try admit  that  the  popes  have  the  right  to  depose  sovereigns,  to  release  sub- 
jects from  their  oath  of  allegiance,  and  to  transfer,  when  they  please,  the 
kingdom  of  one  prince  to  another.  Our  citizens  of  Irish  nativity,  who  are 
the  majority  and  chief  support  of  the  Catholic  Church  in  the  United  States, 
will  have  much  difficulty — de  la  peine — in  admitting  that  Pope  Adrian  IV., 
who  was  an  Englishman,  was  infallible  when  he  gave  Ireland  to  Henry  II., 
King  of  England ;  on  the  other  hand,  the  bulls  of  the  popes  upon  this  subject 
are  so  clear  and  positive  that  the  defenders  of  pontifical  infallibility  in  gen- 
eral believe  themselves  forced  to  admit  the  temporal  sovereignty  of  the  pope 
over  the  universe. 

"Adrian  IV.  said  most  especially :  'Ad  cujus  (Roman£e  ecclesiae)  jus  eam 
insulam,  aliasque  omnes  quae  documenta  fidei  cepissent  pertinere,  nemini  du- 
bium  esset ' — '  to  which  (the  Roman  Church)  belong  that  island  and  all  others 
which  have  received  the  faith,  as  no  one  will  ever  doubt.' 

"  That  donation  of  Adrian  IV.  was  confirmed  by  his  successor,  Alexander 
III.  It  is  also  remarkable  that  the  modern  authors  who  speak  so  high  — 
parlent  si  haut — of  the  privilege  of  pontifical  infallibility,  preserve  at  present 
a  profound  silence  upon  the  other  privilege,  which  their  predecessors  estimated 
as  important,  and  as  well  proven.  Until  now  we  have  been  permitted  to  say 
that  the  Catholic  Church  has  nothing  to  do  with  these  transactions,  and  that 
it  is  not  responsible  for  all  that  the  popes  have  done  or  may  do.  But  if  the^e 
pontifical  decisions  become  articles  of  faith,  the  Archbishop  of  Baltimore  will 
be  placed  in  an  embarrassing  position,  as  well  as  all  that  has  happened  lately 
in  the  matter  of  the  liberty  of  worship — de  la  liberie  des  cultes.  The  expla- 
nations which  your  lordship  believed  yourself  obliged  to  give  have  calmed 
and  appeased  a  petite  tempest  which  threatened  the  Church.  If  our  memo- 
ry does  not  deceive  us — the  proof  we  have  left  behind  us  in  the  United  States 
— it  appears  to  us  that  the  Archbishop  of  Baltimore  esteemed  himself  happy 
to  be  able  to  subscribe  to  your  explanations  when  adopting  them. 

"The  Archbishop  of  Baltimore  tells  us  in  his  letter  that  he  has  never  doubt- 
ed the  general  belief  of  the  Church  relative  to  the  infallibility  of  the  vicar  of 
Jesus  Christ.  In  that  case  will  it  not  be  better  to  ask  nothing  more,  and 
leave  things  where  they  are  and  where  they  have  always  been  ?  Why  does 
he  ask  for  new  definitions  which  do  violence  to  the  conscience  of  several  of 
his  colleagues  in  the  episcopate  ?     Many  of  us  believe  that  ecclesiastical  his- 


THE  EARLY  COUNCILS  ALL  GREEK.  629 

"We  shall  fail  to  reach  correct  conclusions  upon  this  subject, 
unless  by  observing  the  true  distinction  between  the  Church, 
as  such,  and  the  papacy.  The  former  conveys  the  idea  of 
universality,  and  includes  the  whole  body  of  membership — 
the  pope,  cardinals,  all  the  hierarchy  and  laymen.  The  lat- 
ter excludes  laymen  from  any  participation  in  the  manage- 
ment of  Church  affairs ;  and,  if  the  pope's  infallibility  be  con- 
ceded, places  the  entire  power  and  authority  of  the  Church 
in  his  hands  without  any  responsibility  either  to  the  Church 
as  an  organization,  or  to  the  lay  members.  In  the  former 
sense,  the  Church  has  held  nineteen  ecumenical  councils  be- 
fore that  recently  held  at  Rome ;  and  from  the  opening  of  that 
at  Nice  down  to  the  last  —  a  period  of  over  fifteen  hundred 
years  —  it  was  universally  understood,  except  by  the  popes 
themselves  who  succeeded  Gregory  VII.,  that  whatever  of 
infallibility  it  possessed  was  lodged  in  the  whole  body,  act- 
ing through  the  episcopate  assembled  in  general  council,  or 
through  them  and  the  pope  acting  conjointly.  There  is  noth- 
ing in  the  early  history  of  the  Church  contrary  to  this,  but 
every  thing  to  confirm  it.  All  the  dogmas  of  faith  express 
this  idea  in  one  or  the  other  of  these  forms.  The  seven  first 
councils  were  almost  entirely  composed  of  Greeks,  and  w^ere 
assembled  by  the  Eastern  emperors  —  not  by  the  bishops  of 
Rome.  The  aggregate  number  of  bishops  attending  them  at 
their  different  sessions  was  1486,  and  only  twenty -six  of  all 
these  were  Romans.  There  were  only  three  Roman  bishops 
in  the  Council  of  Nice ;  only  one  in  each  of  the  first  of  Con- 
stantinople and  Ephesus ;  only  three  at  Chalcedon  ;  only  six 

tory,  the  history  of  the  popes,  the  history  of  the  councils,  and  tradition  of  the 
Church,  are  not  in  harmony  with  the  new  dogma,  and  that  is  why  we  believe 
that  it  is  very  inopportune  to  wish  to  define  as  an  article  of  faith  an  opinion 
which  appears  to  us  to  lack  any  solid  foundation  in  Scripture  and  tradition — 
dans  r^criture  et  la  tradition — while  it  is  contradicted  by  many  irrefragable 
monuments.  It  would  be  out  of  place  to  continue  any  longer  a  discussion 
whix;h  is  the  business  of  the  council ;  but  before  concluding  we  can  not  re- 
frain from  expressing  our  profound  regret  that  the  friends  so  devoted  in  ap- 
pearance to  the  Holy  See  have  raised  by  their  indiscreet  zeal  many  painful 
questions  where  religion  has  nothing  to  gain," 

This  letter,  written  in  French,  was  translated  for  and  published  in  the  Cin- 
cinnati Commercial  of  May  22d,  1870,  and  the  above  extract  republished  in 
the  same  paper  of  December  18th,  1874. 


630  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

at  the  second  of  Constantinople ;  on\j  Jive  at  the  third  of 
Constantinople;  and  only  seven  at  the  second  of  Nice. (^^) 
The  Greeks  never  admitted  the  primacy  of  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  over  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople.  The  most  they 
ever  agreed  to  was  to  concede  to  him  primacy  of  honor, 
but  not  jurisdiction.  This  was  a  point  of  perpetual  con- 
troversy and  disagreement,  which  continued  up  to  the  final 
schism.  And  therefore  it  falsifies  all  history  to  say  that  any 
of  these  early  councils  established  or  recognized  the  infalli- 
bility of  the  Pope  of  Rome.  The  pretense  has  no  shadow  of 
foundation.  The  Council  of  Nice  did  not  even  consider  the 
assent  of  the  pope  as  necessary  to  the  infallibility  of  its  ac- 
tion, and  therefore  did  not  submit  its  decrees  to  him  for  ap- 
proval. They  were  communicated  to  him  and  the  other  ab- 
sent bishops  by  Constantine,  the  emperor,  "  by  a  letter  in  his 
own  handwriting."  Constantine  tells  him  that  he  is  to  re- 
ceive them  as  a  "divine  injunction,"  because  "whatever  is 
determined  in  the  holy  assembly  of  the  bishops  is  to  be  re- 
garded as  indicative  of  the  Divine  will."  And  Eusebius,  in 
explanation  of  the  universal  Christian  sentiment  of  the  fourth 
century,  says  that  the  decrees  of  the  council  were  confirmed 
and  sanctioned  by  the  emperor.  (^®)  He  does  not  mention 
the  Bishop  of  Rome  as  having  any  thing  to  do  with  them, 
except  that,  like  all  the  other  bishops,  he  was  required  to  ac- 
cept them  as  the  infallible  action  of  the  council. 

The  First  Council  of  Constantinople  conceded  to  the  Bishop 
of  Rome  the  "  place  of  honor  "  in  the  council,  on  account  of 
the  superiority  of  Rome  over  Constantinople;  but  did  not 
extend  his  jurisdiction  or  concede  to  him  any  power  not 
equally  possessed  by  other  bishops.  It  defined  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  each  bishop  with  great  particularity,  confining  each 
one  to  his  own  diocese.     The  Bishop  of  Alexandria  was  to 

C)  "  Debate  between  Campbell  and  Purcell,"p.  45. 

('")  "Life  of  Constantine,"  by  Eusebius,  pp.  127,  132,  135.  Dr.  Hefele, 
Roman  Catholic  Bishop  of  Rottenburg,  and  a  member  of  the  late  Lateran 
Council,  admits  that  the  emperors  presided  "at  some  of  the  first  eight  coun- 
cils." He  says,  "  Pope  Stephen  V.  himself  writes  that  the  Emperor  Constan- 
tine presided  at  the  First  Council  of  Nice,  and  the  ancient  acts  of  the  synods 
frequently  refer  to  a  presidency  of  the  emperor  or  his  representatives." — His- 
tory of  the  Christian  Councils,  by  Hefele,  Edinburgh  ed.,  p.  28. 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS.  631 

govern  Egypt  only ;  the  bishops  of  the  East  were  to  govern 
the  East,  saving  the  ancient  privileges  and  prerogatives  of 
the  Church  at  Antioch ;  those  of  Asia,  their  own  dioceses; 
those  of  Thrace,  the  churches  of  Thrace;  and  those  of  Pon- 
tus,  the  churches  of  Pontus.  Each  one  was  expressly  forbid- 
den to  interfere  with  the  affairs  of  another  diocese.  Each 
province  was  to  regulate  what  concerned  itself.  And  when 
a  bishop  was  accused,  the  accusation  had  to  be  carried  to 
the  bishops  of  his  own  province.  If  they  could  not  decide, 
the  case  was  to  be  taken  to  the  synod  of'the  diocese.  No 
appeal  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome  is  spoken  of;  there  is  not  a 
word  on  the  subject. ('')  If  there  had  existed  any  such  idea 
as  that  he  had  supreme  jurisdiction  over  all  the  churches  and 
was  infallible,  these  provisions  would  have  been  perfectly 
idle  and  useless. 

Nothing  can  be  inferred  in  favor  of  the  pope's  infallibility 
from  the  proceedings  of  the  Council  of  Ephesus;  but  direct- 
ly the  contrary.  That  council  was  called  by  the  Emperor 
Theodosius,  without  any  conference  with  Pope  Celestine  I. 
The  object  of  it  was  to  deal  with  the  heresy  of  Nestorius, 
Bishop  of  Constantinople.  This  prelate  and  some  of  his 
priests  had  insisted  that  the  Virgin  Mary  ought  not  to  be 
called  the  Mother  of  God ;  and  the  heresy  having  reached 
the  Egyptian  churches,  Cyril,  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  called  a 
council  of  the  bishops  of  his  province  to  condemn  it.  After 
this  was  done  the  Church  became  much  agitated,  and  both 
Nestorius  and  Cyril  corresponded  with  the  Bishop  of  Rome 
upon  the  subject.  His  opinion  was  solicited,  more  as  an  ar- 
bitrator than  any  thing  else;  certainly  not  as  a  iinal  judge. 
He  decided  against  Nestorius,  who  appealed  to  a  general 
council,  which  was  called  by  the  emperor.  The  council  af* 
firmed  the  decision  of  Celestine  I.  and  deposed  Nestorius. 
In  this  there  was  not  a  single  element  of  infallibility  recog- 
nized as  being  possessed  by  the  pope.  Nor  was  his  primacy 
recognized.  If  he  had  possessed  either,  his  judgment  would 
have  been  executed  without  a  general  council.  But  it  had 
no  validity  until  ratified  by  a  council,  which  he  did  not  call, 
and  over  which  he  did  not  preside,  either  in  person  or  by  his 

C)  "  Eccl.  Hist.,"  by  Du  Pia,  vol.  ii.,  p.  273. 


632  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

legates,  and  which  his  legates  did  not  attend  until  after  Nes- 
torius  had  been  tried  and  deposed.  This  council  re-affirmed 
what  the  first  of  Constantinople  had  done  in  reference  to  ju- 
risdiction, by  confining  the  bishops  to  their  own  provinces.  (^") 
The  Council  of  Chalcedon  gives  no  more  support  to  pa- 
pal infallibility  than  any  of  the  three  preceding.  Eutyches, 
a  priest,  and  abbot  of  the  monastery  of  Constantinople,  was 
found  guilty  of  heresy  by  a  provincial  council  assembled  in 
that  city,  and  excommunicated.  He  appealed  to  a  general 
council,  and  wrote  to  Pope  Leo  I.  asking  him  not  to  decide 
the  question  in  dispute  between  him  and  his  diocesan  bishop, 
but  to  give  his  judgment  about  the  point  of  doctrine  alleged 
to  be  heretical.  Nor  did  he  ask  Leo  to  summon  the  council : 
this  he  solicited  of  the  Emperor  Theodosius.  It  was  done 
by  the  emperor,  who  caused  all  the  bishops,  including  the 
pope,  to  attend.  The  pope  did  not  know  of  it  until  after  it 
was  summoned,  but  sent  his  legates.  It  was  presided  over 
by  Dioscorus  of  Alexandria,  by  order  of  the  emperor — the 
chief  legate  of  the  pope  having  the  second  place.  Its  de- 
cision corresponded  with  that  of  Pope  Leo  in  reference  to 
the  heresy  of  Eutyches,  who  had  denied  the  two  distinct  nat- 
ures, human  and  divine,  in  Christ;  and  its  final  result  was 
the  enactment  of  thirty  canons.  By  none  of  these  is  any  ju- 
risdiction conferred  upon  the  pope  which  had  not  already 
been  conferred  by  the  former  councils.  On  the  contrary,  by 
one  of  them,  the  twenty-eighth,  there  were  expressly  confer- 
red upon  the  Church  of  Constantinople  "the  same  privileges 
with  old  Rome,"  and  jurisdiction  given  to  it  over  the  dio- 
ceses of  Pontus,  Asia,  and  Thrace,  and  the  churches  "  out  of 
the  bounds  of  the  emperor,"  together  with  "  the  right  to  or- 
dain metropolitans  in  the  provinces  of  these  dioceses."(^^) 
Here,  it  will  be  observed,  there  is  no  recognition  of  the 
primacy  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  over  the  other  churches. 
The  First  Council  of  Constantinople  had  conferred  upon  him 
only  "the  place  of  honor,"  without  interfering  with  the 
jurisdiction  of  any  of  the  bishops,  except  to  define  it.  This 
council  leaves  that  honorary  distinction  undisturbed ;  but, 
when  it  comes  to  speak  of  "privileges"  and  "jurisdiction," 

C)  Du  Pin,  vol.  iv.,  pp.  191-217.  C)  Ibid.,  vol.  iv.,  pp.  218-242. 


THE  COUNCILS  OF  CONSTANTINOPLE.  633 

places  Rome  and  Constantinople  upon  a  footing  of  perfect 
equality ;  thus  absolutely  repudiating  the  idea  of  the  pope's 
infallibility  or  supremacy. 

The  Second  Council  of  Constantinople  was  called  by  the 
Emperor  Justinian,  to  settle  the  controversy  about  "the 
three  chapters."  Pope  Vigilius  exhibited  some  inconsist- 
encies during  its  proceedings,  not  being  inclined  to  go  to 
the  whole  extent  of  condemnation  demanded  by  the  em- 
peror, but  he  finally  yielded  his  assent  to  what  was  done. 
It  included,  however,  nothing  concerning  his  jurisdiction ; 
for,  although  he  was  present  in  Constantinople  during  the 
session  of  the  council,  its  proceedings  were  directed  almost 
entirely  by  the  emperor.  (*^) 

The  Third  Council  of  Constantinople  grew  out  of  the  con- 
troversy about  the  two  wills  of  Christ,  and  was  called  by 
the  emperor,  Constantinus  Pogonatus,  with  a  view  to  recon- 
ciling the  disagreement  between  the  Eastern  and  Western 
Christians.  The  emperor  himself  presided,  although  the 
pope  had  three  legates  present.  The  heresy  condemned  by 
the  council  had  been  professed  over  forty  years  before  by 
Pope  Honorius  I.,  and,  consequently,  in  finding  Sergius,  The- 
odorus,  and  others  guilty  of  it,  they  included  Pope  Honorius 
by  name.  Its  decrees  were  approved  by  Pope  Agatho,  who 
has  been  made  a  saint  by  the  Church.  So  that  the  proceed- 
ings of  this  council  have  always  been  wonderfully  perplex- 
ing to  the  advocates  of  papal  infallibility,  instead  of  being 
available  to  them  in  support  of  that  doctrine.  How  Hono- 
rius could  have  been  infallible  and  yet  a  heretic,  at  the  same 
time,  is  not  a  little  puzzling.  Baronius,  the  annalist,  brought 
all  his  learning  and  ingenuity  to  bear  on  the  question,  but, 
as  Du  Pin  says,  his  "  fancy  must  pass  for  a  matchless  piece 
of  rashness."(")  While  the  Jesuits  have  been  taxing  their 
ingenuity  to  escape  the  effect  of  this  decree  of  a  general 
council  that  Pope  Honorius  was  a  heretic,  and  its  approval 
by  Pope  Agatho,  the  common  sense  of  mankind  has  long 
since  settled  the  difficulty  by  deciding  that  neither  of  these 
popes  was  infallible.  Manifestly,  the  Third  Council  of  Con- 
stantinople thought  so. 

O  Du  Pin,  vol.  v.,  pp.  131-146.  (")  Ibid.,  vol.  vi.,  pp.  66-74. 


634  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

Constantine  Copronymus,  the  emperor,  called  a  council  at 
Constantinople  to  settle  the  dispute  about  the  worship  of 
images.  It  was  afterward  removed,  and  became  the  Second 
Council  of  Nice.  The  pope,  Adrian  I.,  sent  his  legates,  to 
whom  he  intrusted  a  letter  setting  forth  the  necessity  and 
orthodoxy  of  image-worship,  which  he  traced  back,  of  course, 
to  Peter.  The  letter  was  addressed  to  the  emperor,  in  the 
nature  of  a  petition ;  and,  among  other  things,  entreated  the 
emperor  "to  cause  St.  Peter's  patrimony  to  be  restored  to 
him,"  and  "  to  maintain  the  Church  of  Rome's  supremacy." 
He  exhibited  the  accustomed  papal  presumption  in  assert- 
ing his  superiority.  But,  unfortunately  for  the  cause  of  pa- 
pal infallibility,  his  legates  did  not  venture  to  lay  this  inso- 
lent demand  before  the  council.  Referring  to  these  propo- 
sitions, Du  Pin  says, "  The  pope's  legates  durst  not,  perhaps, 
present  them  to  the  synod  in  which  Tarasius  [Patriarch  of 
Constantinople]  presided."  The  council  passed  twenty-two 
canons,  but  none  of  them  interfered  with  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  churches,  as  previously  fixed.  (^*) 

The  Fourth  Council  of  Constantinople,  during  the  pontif- 
icate of  Adrian  II.,  was  called  by  Basilius,  the  emperor,  in 
consequence  of  the  controversy  between  Ignatius  and  Pho- 
tius,  after  the  deposition  of  the  former  and  the  appointment 
of  the  latter  as  Patriarch  of  Constantinople.  The  pope  took 
the  side  of  Ignatius,  and  his  decision  was  affirmed  by  the 
council.  Twenty- seven  canons  were  enacted,  but  one  of 
them,  however,  having  any  bearing  on  the  question  of  the 
pope's  supremacy.  This,  the  twenty-first,  provided,  "  That 
the  pope  of  old  Rome  ought  to  be  honored  and  respected 
in  the  first  place,  and  next  to  him  the  patriarchs  of  Constan- 
tinople, Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  Jerusalem."  It  provides 
that  no  obloquy  should  be  cast  "against  St. Peter's  Holy  See, 
the  prince  of  the  apostles,"  and  that  whosoever  shall  do 
so  shall  be  condemned  for  heresy.  Also,  that  he  shall  not 
be  deposed  by  princes.  And  then  it  also  provides  as  fol- 
lows :  "  But  if  a  general  council  being  met,  there  happens 
any  difference  with  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  he  ought  to  be 
conferred  with  about  the  matter,  and  his  answers  be  had,  to 

C*)  Du  Pin,  vol.  vi.,  pp.  131-148. 


BEGINNING  OF  LATIN  COUNCILS.  635 

make  the  best  of  it  on  either  side,  and  no  rash  judgment  to 
be  passed  against  the  supreme  bishop."(")  Careful  obser- 
vation of  this  language  will  show  its  whole  import.  In  the 
first  place,  following  the  First  Council  of  Constantinople,  it 
assigns  the  chief  place  of  honor  merely  to  the  pope ;  and 
then,  in  the  second  place,  gives  as  the  reason  for  it  that  this 
precedence  of  honor  was  conferred  upon  Peter  when  he  was 
made  "  prince  of  the  apostles."  But  all  this  falls  very  far 
short  of  infallibility,  which,  besides  honor,  includes  power 
and  jurisdiction.  And  the  council  did  not  pretend,  either 
that  Peter  had  any  superior  power  and  jurisdiction  beyond 
that  conferred  upon  the  other  apostles,  or  that  the  pope  had 
them  in  any  greater  degree  than  the  other  bishops.  On  the 
other  hand,  they,  in  the  final  clause  of  the  canon,  exclude 
any  such  idea  by  providing  that  differences  existing  be- 
tween the  pope  and  others  may  be  settled  by  general  coun- 
cils, both  parties  being  heard.  How  could  there  be  any 
such  differences,  or  how  could  a  council  have  jurisdiction 
over  them  if  the  pope  was  infallible?  And  this  council,  it 
should  be  observed,  met  in  869,  long  after  the  temporal 
power  of  the  popes  had  begun  to  grow  under  the  patronage 
of  Pepin  and  Charlemagne,  and  just  after  the  pontificate  of 
Nicholas  L,  who  had  augmented  the  power  of  the  papacy 
by  means  of  the  False  Decretals.  Even  then  the  council 
was  unwilling  to  surrender  its  supreme  jurisdiction  ovei» 
the  pope. 

After  the  close  of  this  council  no  other  general  one  was 
held  for  nearly  two  hundred  and  fifty  years.  In  the  mean 
time,  events  of  the  greatest  importance,  bearing  upon  the  in- 
crease of  the  papal  power,  had  transpired.  By  the  agency 
of  Pepin  and  Charlemagne  the  popes  had  severed  their  alle- 
giance from  the  emperors,  and  had  become  the  acknowl- 
edged head  of  the  Western  or  Latin  Church,  as  distinct  and 
separate  from  the  Eastern  or  Greek  Church.  They  had  also 
succeeded  in  building  up  an  immense  fabric  of  papal  power 
by  means  of  false  and  forged  decretals,  which  were  manu- 
factured as  occasion  required,  to  suit  each  exigency  as  it 
arose.     And  being  thus  separated  from  and  independent  of 

O  Du  Pin,  vol.  vii.,  pp.  92-98. 


636  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

the  Greeks,  the  remaining  councils,  covering  the  whole  pe- 
riod of  the  Middle  Ages,  were  held  by  the  Latin  Church, 
and  under  the  immediate  auspices  of  the  popes.  True  to 
the  purpose  of  acquiring  every  possible  degree  of  power, 
and  of  establishing  their  supremacy  over  the  world,  they 
began  these  Western  councils  at  Rome,  where  the  pope,  by 
means  of  Italian  influence,  could  generally  have  his  own 
way.  We  shall  see,  however,  that,  with  all  these  advan- 
tages, slow  progress  was  made  toward  papal  infallibility. 
It  took  all  the  time  from  869  to  1870 — a  thousand  years — to 
find  a  general  council  with  so  little  self-respect  as  to  place 
the  whole  power  of  the  Church  in  the  hands  of  the  pope. 

The  First  Council  of  Lateran,  called  the  Ninth  Ecumenical, 
met  during  the  pontificate  of  Calixtus  II.,  but  made  no  en- 
actment in  reference  to  the  power  and  jurisdiction  of  the 
pope.  It  passed  twenty-two  canons,  having  reference  to 
other  matters.  (^^) 

The  Second  Council  of  Lateran,  under  Innocent  II.,  con- 
fined itself  mainly  to  the  regulation  of  discipline.  There 
seems  to  have  been,  by  this  time,  a  necessity  for  providing, 
as  it  did,  that  priests  who  kept  concubines  should  not  hear 
mass.  But  it  also  secured  to  them  immunity  from  public 
censure  by  subjecting  to  anathema  those  who  should  abuse 
a  clergyman.  ('') 

The  Third  Council  of  Lateran,  under  Alexander  IIL,  was 
professedly  a  reform  council,  designed  "to  reform  a  great 
number  of  abuses  that  had  crept  into  the  Church,"  and  also 
to  condemn  heresies.  By  this  time  the  power  of  the  papacy 
had  nearly  reached  its  culmination,  and  Alexander  III.  was 
not  the  kind  of  pope  to  permit  any  abatement  of  it.  Not 
one  of  the  twelve  popes  between  him  and  Gregory  VII. 
equaled  him  in  ambition  or  strength  of  will ;  and  not  one 
among  all  his  predecessors  was  more  fitted  than  he  to  pre- 
pare the  way  for  those  events  which  were  soon  to  transpire 
under  Innocent  III.  While  this  council  asserted  nothing  in 
reference  to  the  pope's  supremacy,  it  enacted  twenty-seven 
disciplinary  canons,  some  of  which  were  pointed  at  existing 
abuses.     It  went  somewhat  farther  than  that  immediately 

O  Du  Pin,  vol.  X.,  pp.  33,  34.  (")  Ibid.,  p.  206. 


PAPAL  CONSTITUTIONS.  637 

preceding,  in  the  recognition  of  principles  asserted  in  the 
False  Decretals.  It  anathematized  those  laymen  "  who  ex- 
act duties  and  lay  taxes  on  the  churches,  and  on  ecclesias- 
tical persons;"  and  those  who  should  dare  to  "summon  cler- 
gymen before  their  judges  "  in  the  secular  courts.  It  relax- 
ed nothing  whatever  in  the  work  of  establishing  papal  su- 
premacy, while  it  omitted  any  avowal  of  it.(^*) 

The  practice  of  publishing  what  are  called  "  papal  consti- 
tutions" along  with  the  proceedings  of  councils,  seems,  how- 
ever, to  have  been  then  introduced.  These  consist  of  the 
briefs,  bulls,  and  encyclical  letters  of  the  popes,  wherein  they 
asserted  their  own  supremacy,  and  occasionally  their  infalli- 
bility. They  were  designed,  of  course,  to  maintain  "  the  im- 
munities of  the  Church,"  by  making  the  power  of  the  popes, 
in  its  government,  superior  to  all  other.  The  object  to  be 
accomplished  by  their  publication  in  this  form  was,  manifest- 
ly, to  give  to  them  a  sort  of  consular  sanction,  in  order  that 
the  Church  might,  in  the  end,  be  brought  to  the  point  of  ac- 
cepting them  as  of  equal  obligation  with  the  canons  of  coun- 
cils. The  process  was  simple,  and  the  argument  plain.  The 
False  Decretals  had  furnished  the  claims  of  authority  set  up 
by  the  popes  from  Clement  to  Siricius,  and  these  "  constitu- 
tions "  were  such  as  the  popes  had  made  since  then ;  and  as 
they  all  claimed  supremacy  and  infallibility,  therefore  they 
were  supreme  and  infallible  !  Hence  we  find  annexed  to 
the  proceedings  of  this  council  "  a  large  collection  of  divers 
constitutions  of  Alexander  III.  and  of  the  popes  who  pre- 
ceded," and,  subsequently,  of  those  also  who  "succeeded 
him,"  which  are  published  "as  a  sequel  to  this  council."(^^) 

The  proceedings  of  the  Fourth  Lateran  Council  exhibit 
the  unbounded  ambition  of  Innocent  III.,  under  whose  pon- 
tificate it  was  held.  There  we  find  the  celebrated  third  can- 
on, which  makes  the  persecution  and  extirpation  of  heretics 
a  religious  duty,  which  yet  remains  the  law  of  the  papacy. 
By  this  time  the  claim  of  supremacy  made,  and  so  frequently 
repeated  by  the  popes,  was  considered  to  have  the  sanction 
of  the  Church,  because  there  was  no  formidable  resistance  to 
it.     Acquiescence  was  inferred  from  silence.     Innocent  III. 

O  Du  Pin,  vol.  X.,  pp.  207-209.  ,  Q^)  Ibid.,  p.  209. 


638  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

availed  himself  of  this,  in  order  that  the  practice  of  asserting 
this  claim  in  papal  "  constitutions "  should  become  ripened 
into  the  force  of  law.  He,  accordingly,  is  the  first  pope  who 
boldly  and  openly  struck  at  the  independence  of  a  gener- 
al council ;  and  he  was  not  accustomed  to  aim  his  blows 
ineffectually.  Seventy  canons  were  passed  without  debate, 
which  "  were  already  drawn  up "  by  him  when  the  council 
assembled  in  Rome.  There  was  no  deliberation  or  debate 
about  them.  They  were  laid  before  the  council  by  the  pope, 
who  "  ordered  them  to  be  read  ;"  but  they  were  not  acted 
on.  But  because  the  prelates  did  not  openly  resist  and  de- 
nounce them,  "  their  silence  was  taken  for  an  approbation  ;" 
a  rule  of  procedure  yet  adhered  to.  Among  these  canons  we 
find  it  avowed,  for  the  first  time  in  the  proceedings  of  a  gen- 
eral council,  that  "the  Church  of  Rome"  has  "the  primacy 
over  all  other  churches  according  to  the  appointment  of  our 
Saviour;"  that  they  all  owe  "obedience  to  the  Holy  See;" 
and  that  the  pall  received  from  Rome  is  "  the  ensign  of  the 
plenitude  of  the  pastoral  power."  This  bold  avowal  was 
not  made,  therefore,  till  the  thirteenth  century;  but  even 
then,  when  the  world  was  enveloped  in  the  thick  mist  of  the 
Middle  Ages,  it  stopped  somewhat  short  of  the  claim  of  the 
pope's  personal  infallibility.  Innocent  IH.  was  undoubted- 
ly ready  to  carry  it  to  that  extent,  but,  with  all  his  daring, 
he  was  not  prepared  to  ask  of  a  general  council  a  direct  de- 
cree to  that  effect.  It  will  be  perceived  that  the  primacy 
asserted  was  alleged  to  be  in  "the  Church  of  Rome,"  not  in 
the  pope.  It  manifestly  designed  to  consider  the  Church  to 
be,  according  to  the  invariable  custom,  the  whole  body  of 
Christians,  as  represented  by  the  universal  episcopate  in  gen- 
eral council ;  and  that  the  pope,  in  asserting  this  primacy, 
should  act  within  the  limitations  fixed  by  the  Church.  Oth- 
erwise, many  of  the  canons  would  have  been  useless  —  es- 
pecially the  forty  -  fourth.  This  canon  solemnly  declares, 
"That  the  constitutions  of  princes  which  are  prejudicial  to 
the  rights  of  the  Church  shall  not  be  observed,  whether  they 
be  for  the  alienation  of  fiefs,  or  for  the  encroaching  on  the 
ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  or  for  any  other  goods."  If  the 
council  had  intended  to  change  the  deposit  of  infallibility 
from  themselves,  as  representing  the  Church,  to  the  pope 


STRUGGLE  FOR  PAPAL  INFALLIBILITY.  639 

alone ;  or  if  the  pope  had  thought  it  expedient  to  have  his 
personal  infallibility  distinct  from  that  of  the  council  openly 
acknowledged,  there  would  have  been  no  necessity  for  this 
canon.  The  principle  asserted  in  the  canon  was  considered 
necessary  to  the  Church,  and  as  requiring  the  stamp  of  infal- 
libility upon  it,  in  order  that  it  should  stand  throughout  all 
time.  To  give  it  this,  the  consent  of  the  council  was  neces- 
sary; and  that  not  having  been  withheld,  this  canon  is  one 
of  those  which  the  present  pope  is  desirous  of  enforcing,  and 
with  reference  to  which  the  late  council  must  be  considered 
to  have  acted.  (^'') 

The  principal  object  of  the  First  Council  of  Lyons,  under 
Innocent  IV.,  was  to  decree  a  general  crusade.  And  al- 
though much  may  be  inferred  from  its  silence,  under  the 
then  existing  state  of  affairs,  yet  it  made  no  decree  about 
primacy,  supremacy,  or  infallibility.  It,  however,  gave  its 
sanction  to  the  bull  of  the  pope  which  deposed  the  Emperor 
Frederick  and  released  his  subjects  from  their  allegiance; 
from  which  it  is  fair  to  suppose  that  both  Hhe  pope  and  the 
council  considered  this  sanction  as  necessary  to  give  that 
act  the  ratification  of  the  Church.  Be  this  as  it  may,  the 
stamp  of  infallibility  w^as  also  given  in  this  mode  to  the 
right  of  deposing  monarchs  and  releasing  their  subjects  from 
their  allegiance,  and  that  principle,  with  the  approbation  of 
this  council,  took  its  place  among  the  canons  of  the  Church, 
where  it  has  ever  since  remained.  (^^) 

The  Second  Council  of  Lyons,  under  Gregory  X.,  was 
called  with  reference  chiefly  to  a  reunion  with  the  Greek 
Church  ;  which  fact  will  sufliciently  account  for  its  silence 
in  reference  to  papal  infallibility,  primacy,  etc.  Its  doctrin- 
al decrees  had  reference  to  the  procession  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
though  it  passed  a  number  of  a  disciplinary  character  and- 
upon  general  subjects.  (^^) 

The  Council  of  Vienne  was  assembled  under  Clement  Y. 
This  pope  had  reached  the  pontificate  by  a  corrupt  bargain 
with  Philip,  King  of  France,  by  which  he  solemnly  pledged 
himself  that,  if  elected,  he  would  cause  Pope  Boniface  VIIL 


C)  Du  Pin,  vol.  xi.,  pp.  95-103.  ^  Ibid.,  pp.  6-8,  114, 115. 

C^)  Ibid.,  pp.  123, 124. 


640  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

to  be  declared  infamous.  He  was  one  of  those  who  held  the 
corrupt  papal  court  at  Avignon,  in  France,  and  who  contrib- 
uted his  full  share  toward  causing  it  to  be  esteemed  the 
most  prostituted  place  in  Europe;  so  much  so  that  Bishop 
Durandi  said  of  it  that  it  was  "  the  retreat  of  dragons,  the 
place  of  resort  of  satyrs,  and  the  kingdom  of  demons." 
Clement  V.  called  this  council  to  avoid,  if  possible,  the  fulfill- 
ment of  his  promise  to  Philip,  as  he  hoped  to  find  shelter 
behind  its  unwillingness  to  defame  a  former  pope.  He  suc- 
ceeded so  far  as  to  pacify  the  king  by  issuing  a  bull  to  the 
effect  that  all  the  former  bulls  of  Boniface  against  him 
should  be  held  void.  The  council  did  nothing  but  pass  some 
canons  concerning  the  faith,  and  others  condemning  and 
anathematizing  some  heretics.  With  its  proceedings,  how- 
ever, there  were  published  a  number  of  "papal  constitutions," 
after  the  practice  introduced  by  other  popes,  all  tending  to 
increase  the  power  of  the  papacy.  Some  of  these  by  Clem- 
ent V.  himself  only  go  to  show  how  entirely  impossible  it 
was  for  such  a»man  to  be  infallible:  it  is  scarcely  possible 
they  could  ever  have  been  accepted  by  the  Church,  or  that 
any  general  council  would  have  allowed  them  a  moment's 
consideration.  Among  those  given  by  Du  Pin  are  such  as 
these:  that  as  man  may  reach  perfection  in  this  life,  when 
he  has  done  so,  he  "may  freely  allow  his  body  what  he 
pleases ;"  that  he  is  not  then  "  obliged  to  obey,  or  tied  to 
practice,  the  principles  of  the  Church  ;"  "  that  to  kiss  a  wom- 
an is  a  mortal  sin,  but  the  carnal  knowledge  of  her  is  no  sin," 
etc.,  etc.  This  latter  papal  precept  was  probably  designed 
as  a  shield  for  his  intercourse  with  the  beautiful  Countess 
de  Foix.(") 

This  Council  of  Vienne  was  the  fifteenth  recognized  as 
ecumenical,  and  the  last  which  preceded  that  at  Constance. 
Neither  by  any  of  its  decrees,  nor  by  any  of  those  assem- 
bled before  it,  was  there  any  direct  averment  to  the  effect 
that  the  pope  was  infallible.     With  all  of  them  infallibili- 

C^)  Du  Pin,  vol.  xii.,  pp.  95,  96  ;  Cormenin,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  39-44.  Wenin- 
ger  is  not  content  with  referring  to  the  claim  of  infallibility  made  by  Pope 
Clement  V.  in  his  own  behalf,  but  refers  also  to  these  "  Clementine  enact- 
ments," or  constitutions  of  Clement  V.,  to  show  that  he  was  infallible! — 
Weninger,  pp.  143, 144. 


COUNCILS  MAINTAIN  THEIR  SUPERIORITY.  641 

ty  was  lodged  in  the  collective  Church,  and  nowhere  else. 
But  so  frequently  had  some  of  the  most  ambitious  and  pre- 
tentious popes  endeavored  to  assert  it  for  themselves  inde- 
pendently of  the  Church,  acting  as  an  organized  body,  and 
by  this  means  to  enlarge  the  circle  of  their  admitted  spirit- 
ual primacy  so  as  to  make  it  broad  enough  to  include  juris- 
diction over  temporals,  that  it  became  absolutely  necessary 
to  the  peace  and  welfare  of  the  Church,  that  the  Council  of 
Constance  should  grapple  directly  with  the  question  and 
put  it  at  rest.  It  did  endeavor  to  do  so,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  by  deposing  one  pope  and  declaring  the  superiority  of 
a  general  council  over  all  of  them.  This  was  undoubted- 
ly the  voice  of  the  Church,  declared  in  the  only  recognized 
mode,  and  was  accepted  as  such  by  all  but  the  popes  them- 
selves, and  their  special  adherents  in  Italy,  where  their  pow- 
er was  omnipotent.  They  were  not  disposed  to  rest  long 
under  this  direct  censure  of  a  general  council ;  for  even 
Martin  V.,  who  accepted  from  it  the  place  of  the  deposed 
pope,  so  soon  as  he  could  get  away  from  its  immediate  influ- 
ence, commenced  a  series  of  measures  designed  expressly  to 
reverse  its  decisions  and  bring  it  into  disrepute.  In  this  he 
w^as  sympathized  with  by  Eugenius  IV.,  his  immediate  suc- 
cessor, under  whose  pontificate  the  Council  of  Florence  was 
held,  only  seventeen  years  after  the  Council  of  Constance. 
To  this  council  we  are  now  referred  by  all  the  defenders 
of  papal  infallibility,  in  proof  that  this  doctrine  has  always 
been  recognized  by  the  Church  as  a  part  of  its  faith.  From 
that  time  they  trace  it  down  to  the  present,  through  the 
councils  of  the  Fifth  Lateran  and  of  Trent,  to  show  that  the 
late  council — the  Sixth  Lateran — did  not  introduce  any  new 
dogma,  but  only  gave  expression  to  the  faith  which  had 
always  and  everywhere  existed.  This  pretense  requires  a 
minute  examination,  somewhat  more  in  detail;  but  in  order 
to  see  that  it  is  a  pretense,  and  nothing  more,  it  is  only  nec- 
essary to  observe  the  manner  in  which  the  Jesuit  writers 
dispose  of  the  Council  of  Constance.  Whether,  in  doing 
this,  mendacity  or  ingenuity  prevails  the  most,  the  reader 
must  judge  for  himself. 

Passing  by  the  equivocations  of  Weninger — from  whose 
book  repeated  quotations  have  already  been  made — and  his 

41 


642  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

flagrant  suppression  of  important  facts  necessary  to  a  cor- 
rect understanding  of  the  Council  of  Constance,  let  us  come 
directly  to  the  important  points  of  his  explanation.  He  says 
that  in  condemning  the  heresy  of  the  Wycliffites,  the  council 
"did  not  pronounce  new  ecclesiastical  censures  against  them, 
but  contented  themselves  with  reminding  the  faithful  that 
the  sect  and  its  infamous  doctrines  had  been  previously  con- 
demned by  the  decisions  of  the  Holy  See.  These  decisions 
are  irrefragable,  remarks  the  council,  because  it  is  impossi- 
ble that  the  Apostolic  See — that  is  to  say,  the  pope — should 
err."C*) 

It  requires  but  a  moment's  thought  to  see  that  it  was  im- 
possible, in  the  very  nature  of  things,  for  the  fathers  of  Con- 
stance to  have  stultified  themselves  by  any  such  declaration 
as  this.  It  would  have  been  as  diametrically  opposed  to 
what  they  actually  did,  as  darkness  is  to  light.  They  had 
tried,  condemned,  and  deposed  John  XXIIL,  a  lawful  pope, 
for  innumerable  crimes,  including  heresy;  and  to  have  fol- 
lowed such  an  act  with  the  assertion  that  it  was  impossi- 
ble that "  the  pope  should  err  "  would  have  made  them  the 
laughing-stock  of  all  Europe.  But  it  is  not  necessary  to  ar- 
gue upon  general  principles  to  show  how  entirely  this  asser- 
tion of  Weninger  is  without  any  fact  to  support  it.  Du 
Pin  says,  the  decree  of  the  Council  of  Constance  "  concern- 
ing the  authority  of  the  council  above  the  pope  did  plainly 
decide  the  question,  and  subjected  the  pope,  as  well  as  to 
faith  as  manners,  to  the  judgment  of  a  general  council ;" 
which  applied  not  only  to  times  of  schism,  or  where  there 
were  rival  popes,  "  but  generally  in  all  other  cases."  And 
he  gives  the  reason  for  this  decision :  "  Because  they  deduce 
the  authority  of  the  council  above  the  pope  from  its  repre- 
sentation of  the  Church,  and  from  its  infallibility."  And 
when  speaking  of  the  bull  of  Martin  V.  against  the  errors 
of  the  Wycliffites,  he  says  also,  that,  in  the  forty-first  de- 
cree, "  the  authority  of  the  Universal  Church  is  distinguish- 
ed from  that  of  the  pope ;  and  there  it  is  ordained  that  the 
Universal  Church,  or  the  General  Council,  have  a  sovereign 

C*)  "Apostolical  and  Infallible  Authority  of  the  Pope," by  Weninger,  pp. 
145,  146. 


BULL  OF  MARTIN  V.  643 

authority  indefinitely;  whereas  'tis  only  said  of  the  pope 
that  he  hath  a  primacy  over  other  particular  churches,  which 
amounts  to  the  same  thing  with  the  decision  of  the  coun- 
cil."(") 

This  same  author  asserts,-  moreover,  that,  after  Martin  V. 
had  been  elected  by  the  Council  of  Constance,  and  while  it 
was  yet  in  session,  he  issued  a  bull  prohibiting  all  appeals 
from  the  pope  to  any  other  tribunal,  and  that  it  was  ap- 
proved by  the  council.  The  words  of  this  bull  given  by  him 
are  these:  "It  is  not  lawful  for  any  person  to  appeal  from 
the  Roman  pontiff,  who  is  the  supreme  judge  and  the  Vicar 
of  Christ  on  earth,  or  by  subterfuge  to  elude  his  judgment 
in  matters  of  faith."(^^)  This  statement  is  untrue,  or  else 
Du  Pin  did  not  understand,  or  has  perverted  the  facts — nei- 
ther of  which  is  probable.  When  the  Council  was  nearly 
drawn  to  a  close,  a  question  arose  about  which  there  was  so 
much  disagreement  that  the  embassadors  of  Poland  talked 
about  appealing  to  a  future  council — a  remedy  in  entire  ac- 
cord with  the  common  sentiment  of  the  time.  Martin  V., 
like  some  of  his  predecessors,  was  disposed  to  avail  himself 
of  every  opportunity  ,to  resist  this  idea,  so  as  to  concen- 
trate all  the  power  of  the  Church  in  his  own  hands,  and  ac- 
cordingly issued  the  bull  alluded  to,  notwithstanding,  as 
was  then  declared,  it  was  directly  contradictory  of  what  the 
council  had  decreed.  But  it  did  not  receive  the  sanction  of 
the  council,  as  Weninger  asserts.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the 
council  had  acted  upon  it,  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt 
that  it  would  have  been  not  merely  rejected,  but  sternly 
condemned.  Du  Pin  says :  "  However,  the  bull  of  Martin 
V.  containing  the  prohibition  of  appealing  to  the  council 
was  not  read,  nor  approved,  in  this  session  of  the  council,  but 
published  in  a  private  assembly  of  the  cardinals ;^\^'')  that 
is,  sent  out  as  the  popes  have  generally  promulgated  their 
"constitutions,"  with  the  hope  that,  in  the  course  of  time, 
their  custom  of  asserting  universality  of  power  would  ripen 
into  the  force  of  law.  They  understood  full  well  the  nature 
and  import  of  that  principle  of  their  Church  organization 

C)  Du  Pin,  vol.  xiii.,  p.  15.  C")  Weninger,  p.  147. 

C)  DuPin,  vol.  xiii.,p.  24. 


644  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

which  construes  silence  into  acquiescence — as  do  also  the 
hierarchy  of  the  present  day.  And  they  acted  upon  this 
principle,  if  not  with  impunity,  at  least  with  courage,  until 
at  last  it  has  come  to  be  a  part  of  the  settled  faith  of  the 
Church  that  no  layman  has  any  right  to  inquire  by  what 
authority  a  papal  decree  has  been  issued,  or  to  what  extent 
it  goes,  or  what  it  commands  to  be  believed  or  done,  but  is 
bound  to  accept  it  as  true  and  obey  it  accordingly,  without 
any  regard  to  whatsoever  human  power  and  authority  it 
may  defy. 

Notwithstanding  the  contrary  assertion  of  Weninger  and 
other  Jesuits,  no  man  can  study  the  history  of  the  Coun- 
cil of  Constance  without  seeing  that  the  infallibility  of  the 
pope  was  directly  contradicted  by  it — not  merely  by  the 
act  of  deposing  an  obnoxious  and  heretical  pope,  and  elect- 
ing another  in  his  place,  but  by  the  enactment  of  a  decree  to 
that  effect,  which  was  approved  by  Martin  V.  And  if  it  be 
true,  as  alleged,  that  Martin  V.,  after  approving  this  decree, 
endeavored  to  counteract  its  effect  by  a  papal  bull — of  which 
there  seems  to  be  no  doubt — he  is  presented  to  all  impartial 
minds  in  the  attitude  of  having  played  a  double  part — of 
having  misled  the  council  by  the  pretense  of  approving  what 
it  did,  while,  at  the  same  time,  he  cherished  the  purpose  of 
resisting  it  at  the  earliest  opportunity.  But  this  is  nothing 
new  in  the  conduct  of  the  popes,  who,  in  building  up  the 
wonderful  system  of  the  papacy,  have  taken  care  to  reserve 
to  themselves  the  right  of  doing  whatsoever  they  may  sup- 
pose the  interest  of  the  Church  requires,  without  any  regard 
whatever  to  what  they  themselves  or  any  others  may  have 
done  or  said.  Martin  V.  found  ample  justification  for  his 
duplicity  in  the  example  of  many  of  his  predecessors,  and 
only  increased  the  number  of  those  popes  whose  conduct  has 
since  added  to  the  significance  of  the  precedent. 


COUNCILS  OF  BASEL  AND  FLORENCE.  645 


CHAPTER  XXL 

The  Condition  of  the  Church  at  the  Time  of  the  Councils  of  Basel  and  Flor- 
ence.— Council  at  Pavia  fixed  by  that  of  Florence. — Approved  by  Martin 
V. — Transferred  to  Basel. — Meets  there,  and  is  presided  over  by  Legate  of 
Eugenius  IV. — It  is  Ecumenical. — Agrees  with  that  of  Constance  about 
its  Power  over  the  Pope.  —  Eugenius  IV.  endeavors  to  defeat  It.  —  His 
Proceedings  against  It.  — Organizes  a  Factious  Assembly  at  Ferrara. — 
Proceedings  of  the  Council  against  Him. — He  pretends  to  yield,  and  ap- 
proves its  Decrees. — He  violates  his  Pledge. — He  draws  the  Greeks  to 
Florence,  and  calls  the  Meeting  there  a  Council.  —  It  is  not  Ecumen- 
ical ;  the  Council  at  Basel  is  at  first,  when  its  Decree  against  the  Pope's 
Infallibility  is  passed. — It  represents  a  Majority  of  Christians. — The 
Council  at  Florence  is  mainly  Italian. — The  Pope's  Agreement  with  the 
Greeks  about  his  Primacy. — Limited  by  Decrees  of  Councils  and  Canons 
of  the  Church. — The  Greeks  reject  the  Agreement,  and  it  falls. — This  is 
called  a  Decree. — Its  Terms. — Misrepresentation  of  Them. — Do  not  make 
the  Pope  Infallible. — Give  Him  the  Primacy  conferred  by  Decrees  and 
Canons. — Primacy  of  Honor,  not  Jurisdiction. — The  Fifteenth  Century,  aft- 
er the  Council  of  Florence. — The  French  Church. — Charles  VII. — Coun- 
cil at  Bourges. — Pragmatic  Sanction. — Opposition  of  the  Popes  to  it. — 
Revoked  by  Louis  XI.  —  Parliament  resisted.  —  Council  of  Pisa.  —  The 
Fifth  Lateran  Council  in  Opposition  to  it. — The  Former  renews  the  De- 
crees of  Constance  and  Basel. — The  Latter  factious  at  Beginning. — Aft- 
erward assents  to. — Concordat  of  Bologna  agreed  to  by  Francis  I.  and 
Pope  Julius  IE. — Rejected  by  France. — French  Bishops  do  not  attend  the 
Council. — It  is  not  Ecumenical. — No  Deliberation  in  it. — Submissive  to 
Leo  X. — Council  of  Trent. — Does  not  assert  the  Pope's  InfEiUibility. — 
Does  not  deny  the  Validity  of  the  Decree  of  Council  of  Constance. — 
Concedes  merely  Power  of  Pope  to  interpret  the  Canons,  not  to  set  them 
aside. — Pius  IV.  does  this  only  in  his  Profession  of  Faith. 

It  is  so  positively  and  dogmatically  asserted  that  the 
pope's  infallibility  was  recognized  by  the  Council  of  Flor- 
ence, that,  in  order  to  know  whether  it  is  to  be  accepted  as 
a  fact  or  rejected,  we  must  understand  the  character  of  that 
council,  the  circumstances  which  led  to  it,  and  the  nature  of 
its  decrees. 

The  Church  at  the  time  of  the  two  Councils  of  Basel  and 
Florence  was  fearfully  rent  by  a  most  disgraceful  schism. 


646  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

The  Council  of  Constance,  only  a  few  years  before,  had  ap- 
pointed a  council  to  meet  at  Pavia,  which  had  the  sanction 
and  approval  of  Martin  V.  This  fixed  its  ecumenical  char- 
acter; and  when  it  did  afterward  meet,  in  1423,  and  was  at- 
tended by  five  legates  of  the  pope,  and  by  deputies  from 
France,  Germany,  and  England,  it,  of  course,  retained  this 
character.  It  was,  therefore,  an  ecumenical  council  at  the 
beginning,  according  to  the  principles  then  and  now  univer- 
sally recognized  by  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  It  was 
subsequently  transferred  to  Basel,  where  it  was  presided  over 
by  a  legate  of  Pope  Eugenius  IV. — his  immediate  predeces- 
sor, Martin  V.,  having,  in  the  mean  time,  died.  One  of  the 
first  questions  that  came  before  it  was  that  which  had  been 
decided  by  the  Council  of  Constance,  involving  the  relative 
powers  of  popes  and  councils.  •  It  became  apparent,  at  once, 
to  the  pope  that  the  council  would  decide,  as  that  at  Con- 
stance had  done,  in  favor  of  its  own  and  against  his  author- 
ity ;  in  other  words,  that  it  possessed  the  rightful  power  to 
settle  and  prescribe  the  faith,  independently  of  the  pope,  and 
that  the  pope  had  no  such  power  without  its  consent,  be- 
cause it  alone  represented  the  Universal  Church.  To  pre- 
vent this.  Pope  Eugenius  IV.  immediately  began  a  most  dis- 
reputable war  against  the  council,  intending,  if  possible,  at 
whatever  cost  or  injury  to  the  Church,  to  defeat  this  action. 
He  did  not  hesitate  to  inaugurate  a  war  between  the  Church 
and  the  papacy ;  the  former  represented  by  a  regularly  or- 
ganized ecumenical  council,  and  the  latter  by  the  pope 
alone.  He  undoubtedly  supposed  that  the  times  were  favor- 
able to  the  recognition  of  the  claim  of  papal  supremacy  and 
infallibility;  a  supposition  well  warranted  by  the  condition 
of  affairs  then  existing.  The  long  residence  of  the  popes  at 
Avignon  had  corrupted  the  highest  authorities  of  the  Church 
to  so  fearful  an  extent,  and  the  disgraceful  schisms  existing 
but  a  little  while  before  had  so  rent  the  Church  into  factions, 
that  it  only  required  a  bold  and  courageous  pope  to  bring 
the  bishops  into  obedience,  especially  when  they  were  assured 
that  they  would  be  the  sharers  with  him  of  whatsoever  pow- 
er he  should  acquire  over  the  lay  members  of  the  Church. 
Therefore,  Eugenius  IV.,  in  the  very  first  step  taken  by  him, 
exhibited  a  determination  to  take  advantage  of  the  times, 


EUGENIUS  IV.  647 

and  bring  the  whole  Church  to  his  feet  at  a  single  blow. 
He  was  determined  to  lose  nothing  by  equivocation,  and,  ac- 
cordingly, as  if  he  were  already  dictator,  commanded  his  leg- 
ate to  transfer  the  council  to  Bologna,  where  he  could  pre- 
side over  it  in  person,  and  thus  direct  and  control  its  action. 
Acting  under  the  protection  of  the  Emperor  Sigismund,  the 
legate  refused  to  obey  this  insolent  command;  whereupon 
the  pope,  greatly  incensed,  published  a  bull  dissolving  the 
council — a  course  of  proceeding  both  factious  and  disorganiz- 
ing. In  the  mean  time,  and  before  this  bull  was  issued,  the 
council  had  passed  a  decree  to  the  effect  that  "  every  person, 
of  whatsoever  state  or  dignity,  even  the  pope  himself^  is  bound 
to  obey  it  in  what  concerns  the  faith,"  and  another  deny- 
ing the  right  of  the  pope  to  dissolve  it.  The  issue  was  thus 
distinctly  made — the  pope  on  one  side,  representing  himself 
alone;  the  council  on  the  othei',  representing  the  whole 
Church.  One  or  the  other  had  to  recede,  or  divide  the 
Church  —  separate  its  body  from  its  head !  The  council, 
backed  by  the  emperor,  sent  a  deputation  to  the  pope  ear- 
nestly desiring  him  to  recall  his  bull  for  its  dissolution. 
He  refused.  Whereupon  the  council  renewed  their  former 
decrees,  and  declared  that,  as  they  were  abandoned  by  the 
pope,  it  was  their  duty  to  provide  for  the  necessities  of 
the  Church,  "  as  the  Holy  Spirit  should  dictate  to  them." 
They  summoned  the  pope  to  attend  in  person.  This  he  also 
refused,  and  was  declared  contumacious.  He  was  then  noti- 
fied that  unless  he  appeared  at  a  fixed  time  he  would  be  pro- 
ceeded against.  The  council  declared,  also,  that  no  prelates 
should  attend  a  council  at  any  other  place,  under  the  penalty 
of  excommunication.  It  manifestly  did  not  desire  to  press 
matters  to  an  extremity  with  the  pope,  unless,  by  his  con- 
duct, he  rendered  it  impossible  for  them  to  do  otherwise. 
They  accordingly  deferred  any  final  action  several  times,  to 
give  him  every  possible  opportunity  of  seeing  that  the  wel- 
fare of  the  Church  required  the  restoration  of  the  pacific  re- 
lations between  them.  The  pope,  however,  when  he  found 
the  council  resolved  to  treat  him  as  contumacious,  and  to 
deal  with  him  accordingly,  solicited  ten  more  days  of  delay, 
which  were  readily  granted  him.  He  thus  acknowledged  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  council  over  him,  and  again  asked  for  ad- 


648  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

ditional  delay  of  ninety  days,  which  was  also  granted.  Dur- 
ing the  third  year  of  the  council,  the  pope  sent  to  it  his  pon- 
tifical bull,  wherein  he  declared  that  the  council  was  lawful ; 
that  it  ought  to  continue,  without  dissolution ;  that  he  an- 
nulled and  revoked  his  bulls  dissolving  it;  that  he  approved 
it,  and  would  do  nothing  prejudicial  to  it.  Earnestly  de- 
siring conciliation,  it  accepted  this  bull  as  satisfactory;  and 
admitted  the  pope's  legates,  upon  their  taking  an  oath  to 
approve  the  decrees  of  the  Council  of  Constance.  And  thus 
peace  was  seemingly  restored  upon  the  basis  of  the  superi- 
ority of  a  council  over  a  pope — the  pope  having,  by  his  last 
bull,  proposed  and  agreed  to  this  as  the  basis  of  an  adjust- 
ment. 

But  it  was  only  seemingly  restored.  The  pope  soon  made 
up  his  mind  to  falsify  his  own  promise,  and  to  get  rid  of  the 
troublesome  fathers  of  Basel  in  some  way,  it  mattered  little 
to  him  how.  He  was  playing  the  game  for  empire,  and,  like 
other  pretentious  potentates,  considered  himself  entitled  to 
do  with  impunity  what  the  universal  law  of  ethics  forbids 
without  dishonor.  Accordingly,  while  the  fathers  were  en- 
gaged in  faithful  exertions  to  bring  about  a  union  with  the 
Greek  Christians,  he,  by  his  emissaries,  was  constantly  en- 
gaged in  plotting  against  them.  He  issued  a  bull  to  trans- 
fer the  council,  this  time  to  Florence.  Baffled  again  in  this, 
he  issued  another  transferring  it  to  Ferrara.  Here,  at  last, 
"  some  Italian  bishops,"  with  a  single  cardinal,  met  and  or- 
ganized a  rival  council,  which  immediately  proceeded  to  en- 
act that  the  council  at  Basel  was  illegal,  and  its  acts  void.  It 
will  be  seen  at  once  that  such  a  council  as  this  was  schismat- 
ical,  unless  the  whole  power  of  the  Church  were  taken  away 
from  its  legitimate  and  only  representative  body,  and  trans- 
ferred to  the  pope.  Two  councils  could  not  lawfully  sit  at 
the  same  time ;  and  as  that  at  Basel  had  been  legally  called 
and  organized,  this  assemblage  at  Ferrara  was  manifestly 
irregular  and  factious.  In  so  far  as  the  pope  himself  was 
concerned,  it  was  fraudulent ;  for  in  the  act  of  convening  it 
he  violated  the  promise  made  in  his  bull  sent  to  the  Coun- 
cil of  Basel.  But  the  two  councils  did  sit  at  the  same  time, 
each  having  its  ow^n  representative  character;  that  at  Basel 
representing  the  Church  ;  that  at  Ferrara,  the  pope.    The  for- 


THE  VIOLENCE  OF  THE  CONTEST.  649 

mer  remained  almost  entirely  unreduced  in  numbers,  being 
deserted  only  by  the  pope's  legate  and  four  prelates.  These 
followed  their  master  and  the  few  other  Italian  prelates  to 
Ferrara ;  while  all  the  other  prelates,  with  the  embassadors 
of  princes,  remained  at  Basel,  representing  nearly  the  entire 
Church. 

The  Council  of  Basel,  driven  at  last  to  extremities  by  the 
factious  and  malignant  conduct  of  the  pope,  proceeded  with 
his  trial.  He  was  accused  by  it,  among  other  things,  of  si- 
mony and  breaking  his  oath ;  and,  being  found  guilty,  a  de- 
cree was  adopted  which  "declared  Eugenius  suspended  from 
all  kind  of  administration  of  the  papal  power,  as  well  in  spir- 
ituals as  temporals,  which  had  now  devolved  on  the  coun- 
cil;  decreed  that  all  he  did  should  be  null;  and  forbade  all 
sorts  of  persons  to  obey  him,  under  pain  of  excommunica- 
tion." Measures  of  resistance  were  adopted  by  the  pope, 
who  caused  the  prelates  at  Ferrara  to  declare  all  these  pro- 
ceedings void.  And  he  issued  another  bull  to  that  effect^ 
commanding  those  at  Basel  to  come  to  Ferrara,  and  pro- 
nouncing excommunication  against  those  who  did  not.  Hg 
enjoined  the  magistrates  and  inhabitants  of  Basel  "  to  forc^ 
them  away  under  pain  of  excommunication,  and  an  inter- 
dict ;  and  in  case  they  should  not  do  it,  he  forbade  all  per- 
sons to  enter  within  the  city,  under  the  same  pains,  and  en- 
joined all  merchants  to  withdraw  from  it."  What  a  mild 
and  Christian  temper  did  this  infallible  pontiff  display ! 
In  dealing  with  the  Baselian  fathers,  who  represented  the 
Church,  he  exhibited  that  malignity  which  bad  men  always 
show  when  balked  in  the  pursuit  of  unw^orthy  enterprises. 
But  the  council  at  Basel  was  not  intimidated,  and  retaliated 
by  decreeing  that  that  at  Ferrara  was  illegal,  and  all  its  pro- 
ceedings null.  There  seemed  to  be  no  oil  of  Christian  char- 
ity to  pour  upon  the  troubled  waters.  Every  thing  was 
cursing  and  anathema. 

In  the  mean  time,  the  Greeks,  who  had  been  invited  by 
the  Council  of  Basel  to  attend  it,  were  on  their  way  to  the 
West,  and  the  pope  inaugurated  measures  to  draw  them 
away  from  Basel  to  Ferrara,  upon  the  pretext  that  the  prel- 
ates at  Basel  were  schismatics  because  they  had  opposed 
him.      In  this  he   succeeded,  and   negotiations  were  com- 


650  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

menced  for  settling  the  terms  of  union  between  the  Greek 
and  Latin  Christians.  These  lasted  for  some  time.  The 
pope  insisted  that  the  primacy  denied  him  at  Basel  should 
be  recognized,  but  the  Greeks  refused.  The  controversy 
was  attended  with  a  great  deal  of  violence,  but  no  compro- 
mise was  agreed  upon  at  Ferrara.  The  pope  issued  another 
bull  transferring  his  council  from  there  to  Florence,  where 
it  could  be  more  directly  surrounded  by  Italian  influences, 
and,  consequently,  more  subject  to  his  dictation.  After  it 
reached  Florence,  much  time  was  consumed  in  discussions 
about  the  procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  the  phraseolo- 
gy to  be  used  in  expressing  the  nature  and  extent  of  the 
pope's  power.  He  desired  an  unqualified  expression  of  his 
primacy  over  both  spirituals  and  temporals — the  very  oppo- 
site of  what  had  been  declared  at  Constance  and  Basel.  His 
object  was  to  have  it  so  broadly  set  forth  as  to  show  that 
his  power  was  plenary  over  every  thing,  including  councils, 
and  even  the  canons  of  the  Church.  To  this  the  Greeks 
were  unwilling,  because  such  a  concession  by  them  would 
admit  the  inferiority  of  the  Church  at  Constantinople  to 
that  at  Rome;  whereas  they  had  always  maintained  that 
each  of  them  possessed  equal  authority  within  its  own  ju- 
risdiction. They  would  not  consent  to  go  farther  than 
the  First  Council  of  Constantinople  had  gone,  more  than  a 
thousand  years  before,  which  was  to  concede  to  Rome  the 
first  rank  of  honor,  on  account  of  its  having  been  the  old  im- 
perial city.  This  they  insisted  would  be  sufficiently  indi- 
cated by  a  decree  which  should  provide  for  the  primacy  of 
the  pope,  within  the  limitations  fixed  by  the  decrees  of  the 
ecumenical  councils  and  the  canon  law — that  is,  that  in  the 
exercise  of  his  primacy  he  should  obey  these.  The  issue 
was  a  very  plain  one,  and  required  the  employment  of  an 
unusual  degree  of  diplomatic  skill  on  the  part  of  the  pope 
and  his  adherents.  He  was  dealing  exclusively  with  those 
who  had  been  cut  off  from  the  Roman  or  Latin  Church  by 
the  sword  of  excommunication,  and  were  therefore  heretics ; 
and  his  manifest  object  was  to  entrap  them  into  an  agree- 
ment as  to  the  extent  of  his  power,  which  he  could  fling  into 
the  faces  of  the  Latin  Christians.  These  latter  were  then 
regularly  assembled  in  the  council  at  Basel,  fi*om  which  he 


TREATY  WITH  THE  GREEK  CHRISTIANS.  651 

had  been  able  to  draw  off  only  the  Italian  prelates  and  a 
few  others,  leaving  the  great  bulk  of  the  Church  still  faith- 
ful to  the  decrees  of  the  Council  of  Constance.  And  the 
pope  understood  perfectly  well  that,  if  the  sentiment  of  the 
Latin  Christians  were  honestly  expressed,  it  would  remain 
thus  faithful.  Therefore  he  employed  the  utmost  skill  and 
assiduity  in  procuring  such  an  act  of  assent  from  the  Greek 
heretics  as  would  enable  him  to  set  up  some  claim  of  right 
to  resist  this  sentiment,  and  to  disregard  the  decrees  of  Con- 
stance and  Basel.  In  other  words,  he  desired  to  employ  the 
Greeks  only  for  the  purpose  of  subverting  one  of  the  funda- 
mental principles  of  faith  in  the  Latin  Church,  that  he  might 
be  enabled  thereby  to  bring  the  whole  Church  to  his  feet, 
and  make  the  pope  alone,  as  its  infallible  head,  the  sole  cus- 
todian of  all  its  authority,  the  sole  guardian  of  all  its  rights, 
and  the  sole  dictator  of  its  faith.  How  far  this  papal  arti- 
fice succeeded  will  appear  in  the  sequel. 

As  furnishing  one  of  the  best  modes  of  interpreting  the 
result,  it  is  necessary  to  observe  that  the  chief  action  of  this 
Council  of  Florence  was  in  the  nature  of  a  treaty  between 
the  pope  and  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  and  their  fol- 
lowers, with  reference  alone  to  a  union  between  the  Latin 
and  Greek  Christians,  and  not  for  the  settlement  of  questions 
of  faith.  Certainly,  it  can  not  be  pretended  by  any  body 
that  the  Greeks  had  any  authority  whatever  to  decide  upon 
matters  of  faith,  so  as  to  bind  the  Latin  Christians,  until 
they  had  first  made  such  atonement  as  would  remove  the 
sentence  of  excommunication,  and  restore  them  to  Christian 
fellowship.  Their  visit  to  the  West,  and  all  these  negotia- 
tions, had  this  principal  object;  and  therefore  what  they  did 
or  assented  to  can  not,  in  any  just  sense,  be  considered  as  a 
part  of  the  faith,  unless  also  assented  to  by  such  regularly 
constituted  authorities  of  the  Church  as  were  then  recog- 
nized as  having  the  right  to  bind  the  Church. 

The  parties  had  no  special  difficulty  in  agreeing  to  such 
general  terms  as  would  express  the  primacy  of  the  pope, 
and  his  headship  over  the  Universal  Church.  They,  howev- 
er, understood  these  terms  differently.  The  pope  consider- 
ed them  as  a  concession  of  his  infallibility,  along  with  that 
degree  of  spiritual  power  which  included  jurisdiction  over 


652  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

temporals;  while  the  patriarch  and  the  Greek  Christians  un* 
derstood  them  as  conferring  the  utmost  degree  of  honor,  but 
no  such  authority  as  should  justify  the  pope  in  invading 
their  local  jurisdiction.  The  Greeks  not  being  disposed  to 
make  the  concession  in  the  former  sense,  it  became  necessa- 
ry to  insert  some  terras  of  limitation  or  qualification  which 
should  serve  to  interpret  the  meaning  of  the  treaty,  in  order 
to  obtain  their  assent.  The  pope  proposed  to  insert,  after 
the  words  declaring  his  primacy,  and  power  to  feed,  rule, 
and  govern  the  Church,  these  words,  "According  to  Script- 
ure and  the  writings  of  the  saints. "(^)  But  to  this  the 
Greeks  could  not,  of  course,  consent  without  surrendering 
every  thing.  They  could  easily  see  that  the  proposition 
had  the  stamp  of  trickery  about  it.  Finally,  however,  a 
treaty  was  agreed  to  wherein  the  words  proposed  by  the 
pope  were  so  changed  as  to  express  the  idea  that  the  pope 
had  the  power,  as  the  head  of  the  Church,  to  govern  it,  ac- 
cording to  the  acts  of  ecumenical  councils  and  the  canons  of 
the  Church.  To  this  we  must  refer  presently,  in  order  to 
see  what  its  precise  meaning  is,  since  it  is  the  basis  of  the 
papal  claim  of  infallibility ;  but,  whatever  its  meaning  is,  it 
was  the  best  the  pope  could  do.  It  may  be  fairly  supposed 
that  he  was  only  reconciled  to  it  in  that  form,  because  he 
saw  the  possibility  of  so  perverting  its  terms  as  to  base  the 
claim  of  infallibility  upon  it  and  his  own  superiority  to 
councils ;  especially  if  the  Greeks  should  withdraw  from  it, 
and  he  should  be  left  alone  as  the  only  contracting  party 
authorized  to  interpret  its  meaning.  At  all  events,  he  soon 
found  himself  in  this  position ;  for  the  Greek  Christians  at 
Constantinople,  when  they  learned  what  had  been  done,  dis- 
agreed to  and  repudiated  the  treaty  of  settlement,  and  thus 
the  eifort  at  union  proved  abortive,  and  the  compact  made 
at  Florence  fell  to  the  ground.  This  left  it,  of  course,  en- 
tirely worthless  for  all  practical  purposes,  unless  the  pope 
could  secure  influence  enough  to  gather  up  its  repudiated 
provisions  and  impose  them  upon  the  Latin  Christians  as 
the  law  of  the  Church,  in  opposition  to  the  decrees  of  Con- 
stance and  Basel;  in   other  words,  unless  he  could  reduce 

(')  "Latin  Christianity,"  by  Milman,  vol.  viii.,  p.  46  (note). 


COUNCIL  OF  FLORENCE  FACTIOUS.  653 

the  Latin  Christians  to  such  a  degree  of  submission  and 
obedience  as  to  compel  them  to  accept  their  faith,  not  from 
their  own  legally  constituted  and  assembled  councils,  but 
from  the  heretical  Greeks,  merely  because,  by  all  sorts  of 
art  and  intrigue,  they  had  been  enticed  into  an  agreement 
which,  if  it  did  elevate  the  pope,  most  certainly  humiliated 
the  Latin  Church. 

There  is  nothing  to  justify  the  assertion  that  the  Latin 
Christians  assented  to  these  proceedings  at  Florence.  Those 
of  them  who  attended  the  council  held  there  under  the  au- 
spices of  the  pope,  were  only  such  as  he  had  succeeded  in 
drawing  away  from  Basel.  The  agreement  made  there  took 
the  form  of  a  consular  decree  only  because  it  was  signed  by 
those  who  followed  the  pope.  Of  the  Latins,  these  were,  be- 
sides the  pope,  only  eight  cardinals,  two  patriarchs  (of  Jeru- 
salem and  Grado),  two  bishops,  embassadors  of  the  Duke  of 
Burgundy,  eight  archbishops,  forty-seven  bishops,  four  heads 
of  orders,  forty-one  abbots,  and  the  Archdeacon  of  Troyes,Q 
only  07ie  hundred  and  thirteen  in  all ;  while  the  council  at 
Basel  was  attended  by  the  recognized  representatives  of  all 
the  remainder  of  the  Latin  Christians,  and  had  the  sanction 
and  approval  of  the  Roman  Catholic  princes.  Consequently, 
when  the  Greek  Christians  refused  to  be  bound  by  the  trea- 
ty, the  only  support  it  had  left,  in  all  Christendom,  was  this 
schismatical  faction  of  the  pope.  The  Council  of  Basel  still 
represented  the  Church,  and  continued  its  sessions.  It  re- 
affirmed its  previous  decree,  and  that  of  Constance,  wherein 
it  was  declared  that  a  council  was  superior  to  the  pope,  and 
more  formally  than  before  deposed  Eugenius  IV.  When  this 
formal  act  of  deposition  was  passed,  there  were  thirty-nine 
prelates  and  nearly  three  hundred  ecclesiastics  present — about 
three  times  as  many  as  signed  the  decree  at  Florence  !  They 
declared  him  "  disobedient  to  the  commands  of  the  universal 
Church  ;  one  that  persists  in  his  rebellion,  a  violator  and  con- 
temner of  the  Holy  Synodical  canons;  a  disturber  of  the 
peace  and  unity ;  one  that  gives  open  scandal  to  the  whole 
Church — simoniacal,  perjured,  incorrigible,  schismatical,  he- 
retical, etc."     This  was,  undoubtedly,  the  act  of  a  large  ma- 

Q')  "Latin  Christianity,"  by  Milpjan,  vol.  viii.,  p.  47. 


654  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

jority — in  fact,  of  nearly  the  whole — of  the  Latin  Christians, 
speaking  in  the  only  mode  then  known  to  their  Church  or- 
ganization. Du  Pin  says  that  at  that  time  "  some  prelates  " 
were  with  the  pope  at  Florence,  and  we  have  seen  that  their 
number  was  insignificant  compared  with  that  of  those  who 
remained  at  Basel.  Consequently,  the  Baselian  fathers,  aft- 
er having  deposed  Eugenius  IV.,  w^ere  compelled  to  elect 
a  successor  to  him.  They  did  elect  Felix  V.  The  combat 
now  thickened,  and  bulls  and  other  papal  weapons  were 
hurled,  from  side  to  side,  with  no  less  fierceness  than  veloci- 
ty. Pope  Eugenius  flung  his  bull  at  the  head  of  Pope  Felix, 
declaring  him  heretical  and  schismatical,  and  excommunica- 
ting all  his  supporters — that  is,  condemning  to  eternal  per- 
dition all  the  Baselian  fathers  and  the  bulk  of  the  Christian 
world — for  daring  to  deny  to  him  the  right  to  clothe  himself 
in  the  robes  of  deity.  The  Council  of  Basel  retaliated  by 
declaring  the  bull  null,  and  signified  their  contempt  of  it  by 
consecrating  Felix  as  pope.  The  struggle  waxed  warmer 
and  warmer.  Deputies  from  each  party  were  dispatched  to 
secure  the  approbation  of  the  princes.  The  Kings  of  France 
and  England  hesitated,  and  desired  a  compromise.  Arragon, 
Hungary,  Bavaria,  Poland,  and  Austria  took  the  side  of 
Felix  and  the  Baselian  prelates.  The  universities  of  Paris, 
Germany,  and  Cracow  wrote  theses  acknowledging  Felix, 
and  maintaining  the  authority  of  councils  above  popes.  An- 
other general  council  was  suggested,  but  neither  party  w^ould 
agree  to  it.  And  the  consequence  was  that  the  schism  thus 
created  by  Eugenius  in  attempting  to  force  the  recognition 
of  his  infallibility  upon  the  Church,  and  to  destroy  a  legally 
convened  ecumenical  council,  lasted  until  his  death,  which 
occurred  after  the  councils  of  Basel  and  Florence  had  both 
terminated  their  sessions. 

Nicholas  Y.  was  elected  pope  by  those  who  espoused  the 
cause  of  Eugenius.  Being  of  a  meek  and  peaceful  temper, 
he  agreed  to  the  suggestions  of  the  princes  with  a  view  to 
compromise.  The  final  result  was  such  an  accommodation 
of  the  difiiculty  upon  the  conditions  that  Felix  should  resign 
and  be  made  chief  cardinal,  that  all  the  excommunications 
and  censures  on  both  sides  should  be  revoked,  and  that  "  also 
the   decrees,  dispositions,  and  regulations  they  had  made 


COUNCIL  OF  FLORENCE  NOT  ECUMENICAL.  655 

should  be  confirmed."  This  arrangement  was  carried  into 
effect,  and  Nicholas  V.  issued  a  bull  accordingly,  approving 
the  decrees  of  both  the  Council  of  Florence  and  that  of  Ba- 
sel !  What  there  was,  in  all  these  proceedings,  indicating 
the  presence  and  special  direction  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  would 
be  hard  to  find.  The  conduct  of  Pope  Eugenius  was  char- 
acterized by  violence,  passion,  malevolence,  and  perfidy — an 
entire  absence  of  Christian  charity  and  love.  If  he  had  lived, 
the  schism  would,  in  all  probability,  have  inflicted  still  great- 
er injury  upon  the  Church.  But  it  was  healed,  for  the  time 
being,  by  the  pacific  temper  of  Nicholas  V.,  and  comparative 
quiet  was  restored,  f) 

The  Roman  Catholic  Church  rejects  the  Council  of  Basel, 
and  accepts  that  of  Florence  as  ecumenical.  The  latter, 
manifestly,  has  no  just  claim  to  that  character;  or  certainly 
less  claim  to  it  than  the  former,  which  undoubtedly  repre- 
sented a  majority  of  the  Latin  Christians.  It  has  been  suf- 
fered to  acquire  this  character,  however,  because  the  popes 
and  those  passively  obedient  to  them  have  been  permitted 
to  make  up  the  history  of  the  Church ;  and  they,  favoring 
their  own  infallibility,  and  desirous  of  the  power  it  gives 
them,  have  rejected  the  Council  of  Basel,  which  really  repre- 
sented the  Universal  Church,  and  the  sentiments  of  the  Chris- 
tian world,  far  more  than  did  the  papal  faction  at  Ferrara 
and  Florence.  The  assembly  at  Florence  can  not  be  called 
ecumenical  in  any  proper  sense,  because  there  is  nothing  to 
show  that  it  represented  the  Universal  Church.  That  at  Ba- 
sel was  ecumenical  for  a  time,  at  all  events,  even  according 
to  the  papal  rule.  When  Eugenius  solicited  delay  in  its 
proceedings,  and  agreed,  in  consideration  of  its  being  grant- 
ed, that  he  would  sustain  its  action  and  approve  its  decrees, 
he  knew  that  the  decree  declaring  the  council  above  the 
pope  had  been  passed.  He  must  be  understood,  therefore, 
as  having  bj''  this  act  made  that  decree  a  part  of  the  law  of 
the  Church,  according  to  the  recognized  forms  of  procedure. 
True,  he  supposed  he  could  change  it,  and  resorted  to  false- 

C)  l)u  Pin,  vol.  xiii.,  pp.  28-56;  Cormenin,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  118-120; 
"Church  of  France,"  by  Jervis,  vol.  i.,  pp.  94-98;  "Latin  Christianity," 
by  Milman,  vol.  vii.,  ch.  xii.,  vol.  viii.,  chh.  xiii.,  xiv;  "Mosheim's  Church 
History,"  by  Maclaine,  vol.  L,  pp.  416-418.    * 


656  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

hood  and  iotrigue  to  do  so.  But  having  failed  in  this,  the 
only  course  left  him  was  to  assemble  a  seceding  faction  of 
his  own,  entice  the  Greeks  to  join  it,  cause  it  to  enact  a  new 
decree,  and  then  employ  all  the  authority  of  the  papacy  to 
bring  the  Church  to  accept  it  as  an  ecumenical  council. 
Even  this,  however,  does  not  help  the  supporters  of  the 
pope's  infallibility  out  of  the  difficulty — for  Pope  Nicholas 
V.  afterward  approved  the  decrees  of  the  Council  of  Basel, 
which,  according  to  their  theory,  makes  them  a  necessary 
part  of  the  faith,  whether  the  council  enacting  them  was 
ecumenical  or  not.  But  he  also  approved  those  of  Florence, 
which,  of  course,  had  been  also  approved  previously  by  Eu- 
genius.  What  then  ?  There  is  but  one  common-sense  view 
of  it :  if  Florence  decreed  in  favor  of  the  pope's  infallibili- 
ty and  Eugenius  approved  it,  Basel  decreed  against  it  and 
Nicholas  approved  that !  Were  they  both  infallible  ?  If  so, 
then  the  act  of  one  was  what  the  lawyers  would  call  a  set- 
off against  that  of  the  other.  If  neither  was  infallible,  then 
the  act  of  Nicholas,  being  the  last  in  point  of  time,  must  be 
held  to  be  of  more  weight  than  that  of  Eugenius ;  or  else 
Nicholas  must  be  put  in  the  singular  attitude  of  having  ap- 
proved two  decrees  directly  in  conflict  with  each  other! 
This  would  certainly  require  infallibility — though  the  integ- 
rity of  such  an  act  might  well  be  questioned. 

But  if  it  be  conceded  that  the  Council  of  Florence  was 
ecumenical,  and  that  it  did  regularly  enact  a  decree  in  refer- 
ence to  the  primacy  of  the  pope,  as  the  advocates  of  papal 
infallibility  now  insist,  we  are  brought  to  the  point  of  in- 
quiring what  that  decree  in  point  of  fact  was — whether  it 
went  to  the  extent  asserted,  or  stopped  short  of  it. 

If  the  reader  will  keep  in  mind  the  circumstances  already 
detailed  explaining  the  difficulty  the  pope  encountered  in 
bringing  the  Greeks  to  enter  into  the  treaty  in  reference  to 
his  primacy,  it  will  materially  aid  him  in  satisfactorily  inter- 
preting what  follows. 

The  Jesuits  regard  what  they  call  the  decree  of  the  Coun- 
cil of  Florence  as  furnishing  one  of  the  strongest  arguments 
in  favor  of  their  theory  of  infallibility ;  and  Weninger,  true 
to  their  cause,  gives  the  whole  of  it  in  these  words: 

"We  define  that  the  Apostolic  See,  that  is,  the  Roman 


JESUIT  PERVERSION.  657 

pontiff,  lias  tlie  right  of  primacy  over  all  the  churches  of  the 
world  ;  that  the  liomaii  pontiff  is  the  successor  of  St.  Peter; 
that  he  is  the  very  vicar  of  Christ,  the  head  of  the  whole 
Church,  the  father  and  teacher  of  all  tlie  faithful ;  that  in 
the  person  of  Peter  he  was  intrusted  by  our  Lord  witli  full 
power  to  feed,  direct,  and  govern  the  whole  flock  of  Clirist. 
Such  is  manifestly  the  doctrine  taught  by  the  acts  of  the 
general  councils,  as  well  as  by  the  sacred  canons."(*) 

Weninger's  book  is  so  full  of  errors  and  misquotations  as 
to  excite  suspicion  against  the  integrity  of  much  that  he  has 
said ;  and  where  we  find  him  differing  with  such  an  author 
as  Du  Pin,  if  the  question  rested  alone  between  them,  the 
preference  should  be  given  to  the  latter.  There  is  no  diffi- 
culty about  that  part  of  the  decree  which  precedes  the  pow- 
er to  feed,  etc.  Du  Pin  makes  it  confer  the  primacy,  witli 
"  power  to  feed,  to  rule  and  govern  the  Catholic  Church,  as 
it  is  explained  in  tlie  acts  of  ecumenical  councils,  and  in  tlie 
holy  canons;"  thus  confining  it  within  the  limitations  pre- 
scribed by  the  latter.  But  Weninger  goes  further,  and  rep- 
resents the  decree  as  conceding  the  primacy  as  an  inde- 
pendent and  substantive  power,  with  no  liriiitations  whatever 
upon  it;  and  then,  beginning  with  a  new  sentence,  makes  it 
declare  that  "  such  is  manifestly  the  doctrine  taught  by  the 
acts  of  the  general  councils,  as  well  as  by  the  sacred  can- 
ons." This  rendering  of  the  decree  is  false  at  the  very  point 
upon  which  its  whole  meaning  turns.  The  decree  is  in  a 
single  sentence,  as  the  Latin  in  the  last  note  will  show.  To 
be  understood  correctly,  all  its  parts  must  be  taken  togeth- 
er, not  detached.  But  Weninger  very  deliberately  divides 
it  into  two  sentences.  He  takes  out  the  comma  after  the 
words  "traditam  esse,"  in  the  original,  and  substitutes  ^  pe- 

O  "Apostolical  and  Inf\\llible  Authority  of.  the  Pope,"  by  Weninger,  p. 
148.  He  gives  tlie  Latin  thus  :  "Definimus  sanctam  Apostolicam  sedem  et 
Romanum  Pontificem  in  nniversum  orbem  terrarum  priniatum  tenere,  et  ip- 
sum  Romanum  Pontificem  successorem  esse  Beati  Petri,  piincipis  Aposto- 
lorum,  et  verum  Christi  vicarium,  totiusque  ecclesiaa  caput,  et  omnium  Ciiris- 
tianorum  patrem  et  doctorem  existere,  et  ipsi  in  Beato  Petro  pascendi,  re 
gendi  et  gubernandi  universalem  ecclesiam  a  D.  N.  J.  C.  plenam  potestatem 
traditam  esse,  quemadmodum  etiam  in  gestis  fficumenicorum  Conciliorum  et 
in  Sacris  Canonibus  continetur."  See,  also,  "  Delineations  of  Romanism," 
by  Elliott,  London  ed.,  by  Hannah,  p,  GOT  (note). 

42 


G5S  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWEK. 

riod  for  it — thus  closing  the  sentence.  And  then  lie  trans- 
lates tlie  remainder  ("  quemadmodum  etiam,"  etc.),  so  as  to 
make  it  mean,  independently  of  what  had  preceded,  that  the 
same  degree  of  primacy  which  the  first  sentence  conceded 
was  conferred  by  the  councils  and  the  canons.  A  school-boy 
ought  to  detect  this  false  translation,  as  almost  any  one 
would  with  the  original  before  him.  The  words  "quemad- 
modum etiam"  mean  "  as  also,"  and  can  not  be  tortured  into 
such  a  meaning  as  Weninger  has  given  them. 

Retaining  the  comma,  then,  in  its  proper  place,  and  leaving 
the  decree  one  continuous  sentence,  as  it  is  in  fact,  the  kist 
clause  should  be  rendered,  "  as  also  is  contained  in  the  acts 
of  the  ecumenical  councils  and  the  sacred  canons;"  making 
the  two  clauses  dependent  upon  each  other,  and  the  last  re- 
ferring to  and  qualifying  what  precedes  it.  This  meaning  is 
equivalent  to  that  given  by  Du  Pin,  "  as  it  is  explained  in 
the  acts  of  the  ecumenical  councils  and  in  the  holy  canons;" 
and  substantially  like  that  given  by  Milman,  "according 
to  the  canons  of  the  Church."(^)  The  true  meaning  un- 
doubtedly is  this :  that  the  power  and  primacy  of  the  pope 
exist  just  in  that  degree  which  is  expressed  by  the  councils 
and  in  the  canons.  To  have  declared  the  pope  infallible, 
and  to  have  followed  it  up  with  the  assertion  that  he  was 
also  so  declared  by  the  councils  and  in  the  canons,  would 
have  been  false  in  point  of  fact — for  the  very  last  preceding 
ecumenical  council  had  decreed  j^recisely  the  reverse,  and 
there  was  no  existing  canon  to  that  effect  outside  the  "  con- 
stitutions" of  the  popes  themselves.  And,  besides,  the 
Greeks,  who  were  jealous  of  Rome,  would  manifestly  not 
have  agreed  to  a  treaty  of  union  with  the  Latin  Church  if  it 
had  been  understood  that  they  thereby  surrendered  their  in- 
dependence within  their  accustomed  jurisdiction,  and  subject- 
ed themselves  entirely  to  the  dominion  of  an  infallible  pope 
at  Rome.  Construing  the  treaty  in  the  light  of  the  actual 
relations  then  existing  between  the  two  churches,  it  must 
be  understood  that  the  Greeks  intended  to  concede  nothing 
more  than  they  haS  conceded  at  the  first  Council  of  Con- 
stantinople ;  that  is,  that  the  Roman  Church  had  the  prima- 
cy) Milman,  vol.  viii.,  cli.  xiv.,  p.  4G. 


riFTH  LATER  AX  COUNCIL.  050 

cy  of  honor,  and  nothing  more,  except  siicli  autliority  as 
liad  been  from  time  to  time  granted  by  the  councils  and  the 
canons.  C) 

During  the  remainder  of  the  fifteenth  century-,  after  tlie 
proceedings  at  Florence  had  ended,  the  popes  were  undis- 
turbed both  in  the  claim  and  exei-cise  of  authorit}^,  except  as 
they  brought  themselves  in  contact  with  princes."  But  their 
eflbrts  to  have  it  accepted  as  universal  were  in  no  manner 
slackened.  Under  the  influences  exercised  by  them  the  dis- 
cipline of  the  Church  had  become  so  relaxed  that,  in  1512, 
the  Fifth  Lateran  Council  was  convened  by  Pope  Julius  IL 
to  provide,  in  some  eff"ective  mode,  for  its  re-establishment. 
And  this  brings  us  to  the  inquiry  whether  or  not  papal  infal- 
libility was  so  decreed  by  this  council  as  to  make  it  bindino- 
upon  the  whole  Church.     This  can  not  be  decided  satisfact(> 

O  A  distinguished  British  prelate,  Monsignor  Capel,  in  defending  the 
Church  against  the  attack  of  Mr.  Gladstone,  quotes  tliis  decree  of  tlie  Coun- 
cil of  Florence  to  prove  that  the  pope's  iniiillibility  was  established  by  it. 
He  shows  the  falsity  of  Weninger's  translation,  and  substantially  confirms 
that  of  Du  Pin,  by  giving  the  words  "quemadmodum  etlam"  thei'r  true  ren- 
dering. He  thus  quotes  the  latter  part  of  the  decree:  "the  fall  power  of 
feeding,  ruling,  and  governing  the  Universal  Church :  as  also  is  contained  in 
the  acts  of  the  ecumenical  councils  and  in  the  sacred  canons."— A^ew;  York 
Tablet,  December  12th,  1874,  p.  450.  But  he  commits  an  error  also  in  this  : 
that  he,  like  Weninger,  takes  out  the  co?n?na,  but  substitutes  a  colon  for  it— 
thus  designing  to  show  that  the  words  which  follow  have  no  necessary  de- 
pendence upon  the  previous  part  of  the  sentence.  He  does  not  pretend  to 
any  such  translation  as  that  given  by  Weninger,  although,  by  this  introduc- 
tion of  a  colon,  he  evidently  intends  to  convey  the  same  idca/which  docs  vio- 
lence to  the  language  of  the  original. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  M 'Glynn  addressed  a  large  audience  in  the  hall  of  Cooper 
Institute,  Ne\^York,  December  27th,  1874,  in  what  is  called  an  "eloquent 
answer  to  England's  fallen  statesman !"  After  such  reckless  statements  as, 
that  the  pope  presided,  by  his  legates,  over  the  Council  of  Nice ;  and  over  all 
subsequent  councils,  either  in  person  or  by  his  legates,  be  quotes  the  decree 
of  the  Council  of  Florence  in  the  precise  words  of  Weninger— from  whose 
book  he  probably  took  it,  without  looking  to  see  whether  it  was  truly  or  f\ilse- 
.  ly  given.  He  also  refers  to  the  language  of  the  pope's  legate  in  an  address 
to  the  Council  of  Ephesus,  in  430,  to  show  that  the  legate  claimed  infallibili- 
ty for  the  pope,  an4  that  the  council  acquiesced  in  it ;  whereas  the  flict  is 
that  the  Council  of  Ephesus  was  convoked  by  the  Emperor  Theodosius,  was 
presided  over  by  Cyril,  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  and  decided  the  controversy 
upon  which  it  was  called  to  act  by  deposing  IS'estorius,  before  the  arrival  of 
the  pope's  legates!— Du  Fix,  vol.  iii.,  pp.  195-2Q1. 


OCO  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

rily  without  understanding  also  the  true  character  of  that 
council,  and  the  circumstances  which  led  to  it. 

At  the  time  of  the  Council  of  Basel  the  French  Church  oc- 
cupied an  anomalous  position  toward  the  papacy,  liealiz- 
ino-  that  the  popes  w^ere  endeavoring  to  encroach  upon  its 
ancient  liberties,  and  that  to  concede  to  them  superiority 
over  general  councils  would  enable  them  to  do  so,  it  moved 
with  as  much  caution  as  possible, consistently  with  the  pres- 
ervation of  its  boasted  independence.  Therefore,  the  King 
of  France,  Charles  VII.,  instead  of  giving  an  open  adhesion 
to  the  Baselian  decrees,  favored  a  compromise  of  the  disa- 
greement between  the  two  councils — Basel  and  Florence — 
rather  than  an  open  rupture.  At  the  same  time,  he  was 
unwilling  to  concede  to  the  pope  his  asserted  supremacy. 
Finding,  however,  that  both  parties  w^ere  driven  to  extrem- 
ities— each  anathematizing  the  other  as  schismatical  and  he- 
retical— no  other  course  remained  to  him  but  independent 
action.  Accordingly,  he  assembled  a  national  council  at 
Bourges,  in  1438,  by  which  was  promulgated  the  "Pragmat- 
ic Sanction  of  Bourges,"  which  not  only  asserted  the  right 
of  councils  to  legislate  for  the  Church  and  to  control  the 
pope  by  its  canons,  but  w^ent  even  further,  and  insisted 
upon  the  authority  of  a  national  council  of  France  to  leg- 
islate for  the  French  Church.  Thus,  upon  the  vital  question 
out  of  which  the  issue  between  the  two  rival  councils  had 
arisen,  the  French  Christians  took  the  side  of  the  Baselian 
fathers,  maintaining  the  decrees  of  the  Council  of  Con- 
stance ;  but  from  motives  of  expediency  merely  they  re- 
fused to  recognize  the  deposition  of  Eugenius,  and  rejected 
the  claims  of  Felix  V.  These  contradictory  mo\*ements  had 
their  origin  in  state  policy  far  more  than  in  the  necessities 
and  interests  of  Christianity.  These  latter  were  of  second- 
ary consideration  both  with  the  pope  and  the  king  —  the 
principal  motive  with  each  being  the  acquisition  of  tempo- 
ral power.  The  pope,  of  course,  was  deadly  hostile  to  the. 
"Pragmatic  Sanction,"  while  the  king  was  determined  to 
maintain  it.  The  former  and  his  adherents  insisted  that, 
by  virtue  of  his  supremacy,  he  had  the  power  to  revoke  the 
authority  of  the  Council  of  Basel,  and  that,  although  it  was 
ecumenical  at  the  beginning,  all  its  decrees  passed  subse- 


THE  FRENCH  CHRISTIANS.  661 

quent  to  his  act  of  revocation  were  void.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  king  claimed  that  the  pope's  approval  of  its  de- 
crees previous  to  the  calling  of  the  council  at  Ferrara  made 
valid  that  which  asserted  the  superiority  of  councils ;  and 
that  as  the  council  was  assembled  with  the  assent  of  the 
pope,  his  sanction  related  to  all  the  decrees  passed  by  it 
during  its  entire  session.  And  hence,  as  the  "Pragmatic 
Sanction  "  Avas  but  a  re-affirmance  of  the  decree  passed  at 
Basel,  therefore  it  also  had  the  implied,  if  not  express,  sanc- 
tion of  the  pope.(') 

The  "Pragmatic  Sanction"  became  the  statute -law  of 
France  by  enactment  of  Parliament.  It  was  fiercely  de- 
nounced by  several  popes  in  the  language  of  denunciation 
so  familiar  to  them.  But  all  their  efforts  to  get  it  out  of 
the  way  were  unsuccessful  during  the  reign  of  Charles  VII. 
Under  that  of  Louis  XI.  they  were  attended  with  better  re- 
sults so  far  as  the  papacy  was  concerned.  This  arbitrary 
monarch,  influenced  by  both  papal  flattery  and  threats,  re- 
voked the  sanction  by  an  imperial  decree,  utterly  disre- 
garding the  will  of  the  French  Christians  and  the  dignity 
of  France.  Upon  the  question  of  his  authority  to  do  this, 
he  and  the  pope  were  fully  agreed — each  maintaining  the 
"divine  right"  of  kings  and  princes  to  rule  without  regard 
to  the  wishes  of  the  people.  But  they  disagreed  upon  an- 
other point:  Louis  supposed  that  the  rescission  of  tlie  Sanc- 
tion would  give  him  the  whole  power,  as  king,  to  control 
the  Church  in  France;  whereas,  as  soon  as  the  act  was  con- 
summated, the  pope  claimed  all  this  power  for  himself,  and 
so  exercised  it  as  to  sow  the  seeds  of  corruption  broadcast 
all  over  France,  and  to  cause  both  him  and  the  king  to  be 
held  in  contempt  by  tlie  French  Cliristians.  Parliament 
now  interfered,  and  declared  the  king's  act  of  revocation  il- 
legal, which  left  the  principles  of  the  "Pragmatic  Sanction" 
in  force. 

Yet  the  restoration  of  the  papal  authority  consequent 
upon  the  conduct  of  the  king  had  produced  such  results  that 
the  French  Church  became  paralyzed  by  the  blow.  This 
paralysis  continued  until  the  reign  of  Louis  XII.,  who  form- 
ed) Jevvis,  vol.  i.,  pp.  97-99. 


GG2  THE  TAPACY  AKT)  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

ally  re-established  the  Sanction,  Julius  II.  Avas  then  pope, 
and  immediately  assumed  a  hostile  attitude  toward  the 
king.  This  led  to  remonstrances  on  the  part  of  the  French 
clergy,  who  insisted  upon  a  general  council  to  settle  over 
again  the  points  of  disagreement.  To  this  Pope  Julius 
would  not  consent,  fearing  a  repetition  of  the  decrees  of 
Constance  and  Basel.  His  refusal  induced  the  King  of 
France  and  the  Emperor  of  Germany  to  take  steps  on  their 
own  responsibility  to  have  a  council  convened.  Having  ob- 
tained the  acquiescence  of  nine  cardinals,  these  latter  called 
a  council  to  meet  at  Pisa  in  1511.  The  pope  now  became 
both  embarrassed  and  incensed,  and,  like  his  predecessor,  Eu- 
genius  IV.,  immediately  inaugurated  measures  to  prevent,  if 
possible,  the  re-enactment  of  the  decrees  of  Constance  and 
Basel — the  question  what  was,  or  was  not,  the  true  faith  be- 
ing of  far  less  concern  to  him  than  the  gratification  of  his 
ambition.  For  this  purpose  he  called  a  council  at  Rome, 
which  w^ould  be  more  under  his  control  than  that  at  Pisa, 
and  summoned  the  prelates  who  had  appointed  the  latter 
council  to  attend  his,  at  his  Palace  of  the  Lateran,  in  1512. 
He  threntened  to  degrade  them  of  their  dignity,  and  deprive 
them  of  their  benefices,  if  they  did  not  attend.  Disregard- 
ing both  his  summons  and  threat,  they  opened  the  council  at 
Pisa,  asserting  their  right  to  do  it,  under  the  protection  of 
the  princes  at  wdiose  instance  they  had  acted,  independently 
of  the  pope.  It  was  attended  by  four  cardinals  in  person, 
the  procurators  of  three  others,  two  archbishops,  thirteen 
bishops,  five  abbots,  several  doctors  of  law  and  divinity,  and 
the  deputies  of  the  universities  of  France.  This  council  re- 
newed the  decrees  of  the  councils  of  Constance  and  Basel, 
concerning  the  authority  of  councils  over  the  pope,  and  ad- 
journed to  meet  at  Milan,  where  they  endeavored  to  have 
the  pope  to  meet  with  them,  in  order  to  decide  upon  the  nec- 
essary measures  of  reform.  This  he  refused,  and  they  at 
last  proceeded  to  declare  him  contumacious  and  schismatic, 
and  to  suspend  him  from  the  administration  of  the  papacy. 
The  Council  of  Pisa  then  came  to  an  end.  And  although  it 
had  not  at  any  time  any  authority  as  an  ecumenical  council, 
and  only  serves  to  show  how  large  a  portion  of  the  Christians 
of  Europe  refused  to  admit  the  supremacy  claimed  by  the 


STKUGGLE  BErWEEN  KING  AND  POPE.  663 

pope,  yet  its  decree  suspending  the  pope  was  accepted  in 
France,  where  the  king,  Louis  XII.,  forbade  his  subjects  any 
longer  to  regard  Julius  11.  as  pope,  or  to  pay  any  attention 
to  his  bulls.  The  pope  replied  by  excommunicating  the  king, 
putting  France  under  an  interdict,  and  releasing  his  subjects 
from  their  oath  of  allegiance.  And  thus  the  contest  be- 
tween these  royal  representatives  of  the  "divine  riglit"  wax- 
ed to  an  exceeding  degree  of  warmth.  (**) 

The  council  called  by  Julius  II. — the  Fifth  Lateran — met 
in  Rome  in  1512.  It  was  certainly  not  ecumenical  at  the 
beo-inningf,  havino;  no  I'uster  claim  to  be  so  considered  than 
the  assemblage  at  Pisa,  unless  the  pope's  claim  of  suprema- 
cy is  primarily  conceded.  The  word  "ecumenical"  has  but 
one  meaning  —  that  of  universal.  Ecumenical  councils  are 
designed  to  give  expression  to  the  universal  faith,  and,  there- 
fore, in  all  the  early  ages  of  the  Church,  they  constituted 
"the  highest  courts  of  judicature  in  all  dogmatic  discus- 
sions."(^)  But  they  obtained  that  character  only  by  virtue 
of  the  fact  that  they  represented  the  entire  Church ;  that  is, 
included  all  the  episcopate.  If  they  did  not  do  this,  they 
had  no  just  jurisdiction  over  matters  pertaining  to  the  Uni- 
versal Church  ;  or,  in  other  words,  could  not  decide  questions 
of  faith.  Measured  by  this  rule,  the  Fifth  Council  of  Lat- 
eran was  certainly  not  ecumenical  at  its  commencement,  be- 
cause the  whole  Church  was  not  represented  there.  There 
were  no  prelates  from  England,  France,  Germany,  Spain, 
Austria,  Bohemia,  Poland,  Hungary,  or  any  other  part  of  the 
Christian  world  outside  of  Italy;  and  only  those  who  lived 
alone  upon  the  favor  and  patronage  of  the  pope.  Du  Pin 
says  they  were  "  all  Italians,"  except  some  abbots.  Thus 
far,  then,  it  was  entirely  factious,  like  tliat  at  Ferrara ;  both 
factions  having  their  origin  in  precisely  tlie  same  motiv.e. 
Did  it  afterward  become  ecumenical  ?  Its  original  character 
was  not  changed  during  the  life  of  Julius  II.,  although,  with- 
in that  time,  it  had  declared  annulled  all  the  proceedings 
at  Pisa,  confirmed  the  bull  against  the  King  of  France,  and 


(*)  Du  Pin,  vol.  xiii.,  pp.  17-19 ;  Jenis.  vol.  i.,  pp.  100-103  ;  Pleuiy,  livre 
cxxii.,  §§  115-117  ;  apud  Jervis. 
O  Alzog,  p.  677. 


664  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

fiercely  nttacked  the  Pragmatic  Sanction.  It  liad  also  sum- 
moned all  its  supporters  to  appear  and  show  cause  wliy  it 
should  not  be  revoked.  At  this  point,  tlie  deatli  of  Julius  II. 
occurred,  and  Leo  X.  became  pope.  Being  of  the  princely 
family  De'  Medici,  of  Florence,  he  entertained  more  enlarged 
views  than  Julius  II.,  and  the  King  of  France  was  encour- 
aged by  hopes  of  a  satisflictory  reconciliation  with  him. 
Accordingly,  he  sent  his  embassadors  to  the  council,  and  re- 
nounced the  proceedings  at  Pisa.  The  King  of  Spain  and 
tlie  Emperor  of  Germany  did  the  same;  and  the  prelates 
who  had  assembled  at  Pisa  also  attended  the  council.  The 
French  bishops  had  not  yet  done  so.  The  king  stipulated 
that  they  should,  but  the  time  was  postponed  till  the  lat- 
ter part  of  the  year  1516,  when  the  council  was  to  hold  its 
eleventh  session.  Before  that  time  arrived,  Louis  XII.  died, 
and  Francis  I.  became  King  of  France.  AVith  him  and  the 
pope  the  question  now  became  one  of  diplomacy,  the  inter- 
ests of  the  Church  still  remaining  secondary.  A  diplomatic 
embassador  was  sent  to  Rome,  and  finally  came  to  a  com- 
promise Avith  Leo  X.,by  abrogating  the  Pragmatic  Sanction 
and  substituting  the  celebrated  Concordat  of  Bologna  in  its 
place.  Each  of  the  parties  to  this  arrangement  supposed 
liimself  the  gainer — the  king  by  being  made  the  head  of  the 
Church  in  France,  and  the  pope  by  being  enabled  to  collect 
annats  or  imposts  in  France,  which  had  been  denied  by  the 
Pragmatic  Sanction.  The  pope  exchanged  a  share  of  the 
spiritual  right  claimed  by  his  predecessors  for  this  temporal 
advantage.  But  France  w^as  not  as  easily  reconciled  as  the 
king.  The  Parliament  resisted  the  Concordat,  and  adhered 
to  the  Pragmatic  Sanction.  The  University  of  Paris  did  the 
same.  An  appeal  to  a  general  council  was  insisted  on — that 
at  Rome  not  being  so  considered.  The  king,  becoming  in- 
censed at  this  resistance  to  his  royal  Avill,  denounced  these 
proceedings  as  seditious,  and  undertook  to  enforce  the  Con- 
cordat by  despotic  power. 

In  the  mean  time  the  period  fixed  for  the  eleventh  session 
of  the  Lateran  Council  liad  arrived,  and  the  session  was  held 
without  the  attendance  of  any  of  the  French  clergy.  Noth- 
ing had  transpired  to  give  it  universality,  inasmuch  as  many 
parts  of  the  Christian  world  yet  remained  unrepresented  in 


LEO  X.  '  665 

it.  It  still  retained  its  original  Italian  character,  and  was, 
to  all  intents  and  purposes,  the  pope's  coimcil,  and  not  that 
of  the  Church.  And  yet  it  was  at  this  eleventh  session  of 
the  council  that  a  decree  was  passed  which,  it  is  now  claim- 
ed, recognizes  the  pope's  infallibility.  The  foregoing  facts 
show,  if  such  a  decree  was  passed,  that  it  was  not  binding 
on  the  Church  as  a  part  of  its  faith;  and  the  fact  that  it  was 
not  so  considered  by  the  Church  is  fully  established  by  sub- 
sequent events. 

But  no  such  decree  was,  in  point  of  fact,  passed  by  the 
Fifth  Lateran  Council.  The  facts  are  these:  the  pope  is- 
sued a  bull  abrogating  the  Pragmatic  Sanction,  affirming 
the  Concordat,  and  declaring  that  he  had  authority  above 
councils,  and  full  power  to  call,  remove,  or  dissolve  them 
at  will.  He  also  renewed  the  bull  of  Boniface  VIII.  called 
JJnam  Sanctam^  which  asserted  the  supremacy  of  the  pope 
over  the  world,  both  in  spirituals  and  temporals.  AVhen 
this  bull  was  read  in  the  council,  it  was  "  approved  by  all 
the  bishops"  except  one,  says  Du  Pin.('")  There  was  no 
freedom  either  of  discussion  or  of  will.  It  was  simply  a 
strong  man,  as  Leo  X.  was,  commanding  and  exacting  obe- 
dience by  the  superiority  of  his  own  will.  There  was  no 
decree  about  it  —  nothing  but  the  simple  approval  of  the 
pope's  bull.  And,  consequently,  this  is  to  be  taken  merely 
as  the  assent  to  it  by  those  prelates  who  were  present; 
which  was  in  no  way  binding  upon  those  who  were  not 
present.  The  Church,  as  such,  was  not  represented  In  the 
council,  and  consequently  did  not  assent  to  its  action,  what- 
ever it  may  have  been.  The  French  Christians  resisted  the 
whole  thing,  continued  to  adhere  to  the  Pragmatic  Sanc- 
tion, and  to  resist  the  Concordat.  And  therefore  the  de- 
fenders of  the  pope's  infallibility  can  not,  with  any  proprie- 
ty whatever,  insist  that  the  Fifth  Lateran  Council  made  it 
a  part  of  the  law  of  the  Church. 

What  was  done  by  the  Ecumenical  Council  of  Trent  upon 
this  subject  is  more  readily  disposed  of;  although  this  was 
the  most  important  of  all  the  councils,  and  its  various  ses- 

Q°)  Du  Pin,  vol.  xiii.,  pp.  22-25  ;  Jervis,  vol.  i.,  pp.  107, 108  ;  Maclaina's 
"  Moslieim's  Church  History,"  vol.  ii.,  p.  9. 


CGG  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

sions  were  held  from  1545  to  1563.  In  its  decree  for  o-en- 
eral  reformation  it  is  provided  that  "they  will  be  obedient 
to  the  constitutions  of  the  pope,  and  of  councils,  determin- 
ing that  all  constitutions  of  general  councils,  and  of  the 
Apostolic  See,  in  favor  of  ecclesiastical  persons  and  liberty, 
shall  be  observed  by  all"  In  another  decree,  which  was 
held  back  until  the  final  session,  and  was  "never  mentioned 
in  any  congregation,"  it  was  provided  that  in  all  the  decrees 
of  reformation  made  in  the  council,  under  the  three  previous 
popes,  "the  autliority  of  the  Apostolic  See  is  excepted  and 
preserved. "(")  That  this  council  intended  to  enlarge  the 
power  of  the  papacy  to  the  utmost  extent  there  is  no  sort 
of  doubt.  Its  final  action  was  mainly  controlled  by  Italian 
bishops  from  Home — the  tools  of  the  pope ;  and  they  would 
listen  to  nothing  that  limited  liis  power.  Tlie  French  em- 
bassador present,  writing  to  the  king,  said,  "They  will  give 
ear  to  nothing  that  may  hinder  the  profit  and  authority  of 
the  Court  of  Rome.  Besides,  the  pope  is  so  much  master 
of  this  council,  that  his  2^6)1  si07iers,  w^hatsoever  the  emperor's 
embassadors  or  we  do  remonstrate  unto  them,  will  do  but 
what  they  list."(^') 

But  it  will  be  observed  tliat  neither  of  these  decrees  asserts 
the  doctrine  of  the  pope's  infallibility.  The  most  they  do  is 
to  assert  that  the  Church  is  to  be  governed  by  the  constitu- 
tions of  the  popes  a?id  the  canons  of  councils.  They  do  not 
decide,  nor  did  the  Council  of  Trent  at  any  other  time  de- 
cide, Which  of  the  two  should  prevail  when  tlie  constitutions 
of  the  popes  and  the  canons  of  councils  came  in  conflict. 
The  general  terms  employed  embrace  all  the  councils.  And 
as  one  canon  of  the  Council  of  Constance  declared  that  the 
pope  was  inferior  to  a  council,  and  no  ecumenical  council,  as 
we  have  seen,  has  repealed  that  canon,  therefore  it  is  in- 
cluded in  the  decree  of  the  Council  of  Trent.  Besides^  it  is 
said  that  the  fiiith  never  changes — that  it  never  can  change. 
This  being  true,  the  canon  of  Constance  was  a  part  of  the 
fiiith  after  that  council  had  adjourned;  and  must  have  con- 
tinued so  up  to  the  Council  of  Trent,  and  could  not  be 


(")  "History  of  the  Council  of  Trent,"  by  Sarpi,  pp.  7oG,  757. 
C)  Ibid.,  p.  783. 


COUNCIL  OF  TRENT.  667 

changed  by  it.  Therefore,  the  Council  of  Trent,  while  it 
went  as  far  as  it  dared  to  go  to  give  supremacy  to  the  pope, 
must  be  considered  as  denying  his  infallibility,  because  they 
did  not  affirm  it.  If  they  had  intended  to  affirm  it,  they 
would- have  required  obsdience  to  him  alone,  as  the  late  Lat- 
eran  Council  has  done,  and  not  to  him  and  the  canons  of 
councils  conjointly.  Requiring  the  faithful  to  look  to  tlie 
constitutions  of  popes  and  the  canons  of  councils  is  almost 
an  express  denial  of  the  pope's  infallibility. 

Yet  it  is  true  that  the  Council  of  Trent  did  not  expressly 
place  any  limitation  upon  the  power  of  the  pope.  It  left  it 
as  it  found  it,  but  somewhat  augmented  in  strengtli  by  the 
failure  to  place  a  curb  upon  it.  While  it  conceded  to  the 
])0[)e  the  power  to  interpret  its  canons,  and  thereby  gave 
liim  great  control  over  the  faith,  yet  it  did  not  give  him  the 
power  to  set  aside  existing  canons,  or  to  make  new  ones. 
Therefore  it  stopped  short  of  declaring  him  infallible.  And 
so  Pius  IV.  understood  it  when,  in  1504,  lie  promulgated  the 
creed,  founded  upon  existing  canons,  which  has  been  since 
reproclaimed  by  Pius  IX.  and  remained  as  the  fjiith  of  the 
Church  up  to  the  late  Lateran  Council.  That  creed  requires 
that  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures  to  be  accepted  which 
has  "the  unanimous  consent  of  the  fatliers;"  and,  while  it 
enjoins  "true  obedience  to  the  Roman  pontiff,"  it  does  not 
concede  to  him  the  power  to  set  aside  this  "  unanimous  con- 
sent" and  substitute  his  own  interpretation  for  it.  That  re- 
mained for  the  late  council,  which  has  so  changed  the  creed 
as  to  require  it  now  to  mean  that  the  "  true  obedience  to 
tha  Roman  pontiff"  which  is  now  enjoined  is  to  accept  that 
interpretation  of  Scripture  which  he,  and  not  the  fathers, 
shall  give !  Does  not  this  change  the  old  faith,  and  substi- 
tute a  new  one  for  it  ? 

Now,  it  is  undoubtedly  true  that  those  who,  by  this 
change  of  faith,  have  elevated  the  pope  above  the  fathers 
and  all  the  great  councils  of  the  Church,  by  assigning  to 
him  equality  with  God  on  earth,  have  done  so  because  they 
hope  thereby  to  be  able  to  bring  the  world  back  again  into 
that  condition  in  which  it  was  when  the  popes  did  exercise 
the  utmost  plenitude  of  power  by  usurpations  they  were 
strong  enough  to  maintain.     Every  intelligent  reader  knows 


G68  THE  PAPxiCY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWEK. 

what  that  condition  was ;  but  it  is  nowhere  more  graphical- 
ly portrayed,  in  so  far  as  the  popes  were  concerned,  than  by 
the  greatest  of  Italian  historians,  who  was  a  personal  ob- 
server of  the  passing  events  just  preceding  the  Council  of 
Trent.  After  enumerating  some  of  the  usurpations  by  which 
the  popes  had  obtained  their  ascendency  over  princes  and 
peoples,  he  says:  "Being  raised  by  these  steps  unto  earthly 
power,  they  laid  aside  by  little  and  little  the  care  of  souls 
and  of  divine  precepts:  so  that  setting  their  affections  whol- 
ly upon  earthly  greatness,  and  using  their  spiritual  authori- 
ty only  as  an  instrument  of  their  temporal,  they  seemed  rath- 
er to  be  secular  princes  than  priests.  After  this  their  care 
and  business  was  no  more  sanctity  of  life,  increase  of  relig- 
ion, love,  and  charity  toward  their  neighbor,  but  armies,  and 
Avars  aG:ainst  Christians,  handling^  the  sacrifices  even  with 
bloody  hands;  but  heaping  up  wealth;  but  new  laws,  new 
arts,  new  snares  to  scrape  money  from  all  parts.  For  this 
end  they  used  their  spiritual  weapons  without  respect,  and 
sold  things,  both  sacred  and  profane,  without  any  shame  at 
all.  The  popes  and  the  court  thus  abounding  with  wealth, 
there  followed  pomp,  riot,  dishonesty,  lust,  and  abominable 
pleasures  :  no  care  of  posterity,  no  thought  of  maintaining 
the  perpetual  dignity  of  the  papacy;  but  in  place  hereof 
succeeded  ambitious  and  pestiferous  desires  to  exalt  their 
sons,  nej^hews,  and  kindred,  not  only  to  immoderate  riches, 
but  to  principalities  and  to  kingdoms ;  bestowing  their  dig- 
nities and  benefices  not  upon  virtuous  and  well-deserving 
men,  but  either  selling  them  to  those  who  would  give  most, 
or  misplacing  them  upon  amibitious,  covetous,  and  impudent- 
ly voluptuous  persons."(^^) 

C^)  Francis  Guicciavdini,  from  the  fourth  book  of  his  "History;"  aptid 
Sarpi,  pp.  781,  782. 


THE  PAPACY  ALWAYS  EXCLUSIVE.  669 


CHAPTER  XXII. 

The  Laity  and  the  Church.— They  once  aid  in  Election  of  Popes, —Greg- 
ory VII.  takes  away  this  Power,  and  vests  it  in  the  College  of  Cardinals. 
—His  Object  is  Universal  Dominion.— The  Papacy  necessarily  Intoler- 
jint. — Never  satisfied  with  Freedom  of  Conscience.— Condemned  in  Sylla- 
bus of  Pius  IX. — Denounced  when  introduced  in  Austria. — He  excom- 
municates all  Heretics.— Magna  Charta.— Keligious  Toleration  in  Mary- 
land.— The  Colony  Part  of  Virginia. — English  Supremacy  established  by 
Law  in  Virginia. — The  Law  extended  over  Maryland. — Lord  Baltimore 
in  Virginia. — lie  can  not  take  the  Oath  as  a  Roman  Catholic. — Obtains 
Grant  from  Charles  I.— It  provides  for  Religious  Toleration  in  the  New 
Colony. — This'is  a  Necessity  to  Lord  Baltimore. — He  can  not  settle  a 
Roman  Catholic  Colony  without  it.— Charles  I.  favors  the  Papists.— Ro- 
man Catholic  Emigrants  to  Maryland.— Make  War  on  Virginians  found 
there.— They  suppress  the  Protestants.— Efforts  to  establish  the  Royal 
Authority  of  Lord  Baltimore.— Oath  of  Allegiance  to  him.— Offices  filled 
by  Roman  Catholics. — All  Writs  run  in  his  Name.— Those  who  refuse 
Fidelity  to  him  forfeit  their  Property.— Their  Lands  to  be  seized.— Col- 
onists under  Control  of  Jesuit  Priests.— Their  Claim  of  Church  Immuni- 
ties.— Opposition  to  English  Law. —Jesuits  never  in  Favor  of  Religious  Tol- 
eration.—The  Condition  of  the  Papacy  at  that  Time.— Completely  allied 
with  the  Jesuits. — Gregory  XV. — His  Persecutions. — His  Influence  over 
Louis  XIII.  of  France. — Urban  VIII. — Terrible  Persecutions  under  his 
Reign. — Cardinal  Richelieu  andOlivarez. — Persecution  of  Galileo. — Bank 
Debt  collected  by  Bull  of  the  Pope. — All  the  Teachings  of  the  Church  op- 
posed to  Religious  Toleration. — The  Legislation  in  Maryland  is  only  in 
Obedience  to  the  Charter.— May  have  had  the  Assent  of  Laymen,  but 
not  of  the  Priests  or  the  Church. — Could  not  have  the  Assent  of  Pope 
Pius  IX.  now. 

It  has  abundantly  appeared  in  the  preceding  chapters 
tliat  the  theory  upon  which  the  papal  system  has  been  con- 
structed requires  all  Roman  Catholics  to  be  exclusive,  intol- 
erant, and  aggressive.  To  say  that  they  are  not  all  so,  is 
only  to  say  what  every  body  know^s;  but  it  is  no  answer  to 
the  allegation  against  the  system  itself.  Those  who  con- 
stitute these  commendable  and  praiseworthy  examples  are 
mostly  single   individuals ;   but  sonietimes  communities  — 


G70  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  PO^YEK. 

as  is  frequently  found  to  be  the  case  in  the  United  States. 
They  are,  however,  generally  influenced  by  their  special  sur- 
roundings, and  have  never  acquired  sufficient  prominence 
to  impress  their  sentiments  upon  those  who  mold  the  princi- 
ples and  direct  the  course  of  the  papacy.  The  popes  have 
never  been  influenced  by  them  in  any  degree  since  the  pa- 
pal power  reached  its  culmination ;  but,  on  the  contrary 
have  simply  borne  with  them  on  account  of  their  general 
acceptance  of  the  fundamentals  of  the  Roman  Catholic  faith, 
and  their  habit  of  non-resistance. 

For  a  number  of  centuries  the  laity  had  a  voice  in  the 
election  of  the  popes,(')  which,  of  course,  made  those  elected, 
or  desiring  to  be  elected,  somewhat  circumspect  in  their  con- 
duct toward  them.  This  did  not  give  the  people  any  direct 
influence  over  the  faith,  but  rather  indirect,  by  means  of 
that  representative  feature  in  the  Church  constitution  which 
provided  for  general  councils.  There  was  no  change  in  this 
mode  of  procedure  until  the  emperors  and  kings  of  France, 
Spain,  and  Germany,  from  political  motives  only,  arrogant- 
ly asserted  the  imperial  right  to  select  popes  obedient  to 
themselves,  and  to  dispossess  such  as  were  not  so.  And 
when,  after  severe  and  long-continued  struggles,  the  popes 
were  enabled  to  wrench  this  usurped  power  from  the  hands 
of  royalty,  they  felt  themselves  under  no  obligation  to  re- 
store the  ancient  authority  of  the  people;  because,  by  that 
time  they  had  become  so  inoculated  with  the  sentiments  of 
imperialism  themselves,  that  they  did  not  consider  the  peo- 
ple as  having  any  rights  whatever  in  matters  of  so  much  im- 
portance. Insisting  that  the  episcopal  order  was  establish- 
ed by  direct  appointment  of  Christ,  they  claimed  for  it  the 
power  of  self-perpetuation ;  and  therefore  it  became  an  es- 
tablished principle  of  the  papacy  that,  even  when  the  peo- 
ple aided  in  the  election  of  a  pope,  they  had  no  right  to  as- 
sume that  he  derived  any  authority  from  them.(^)  From 
this  principle  it  was  easy  for  so  ambitious  and  talented  a 
man  as  Gregory  VII,  surrounded  by  the  prevailing  super- 
stition  of  the   eleventh   century,  to   deduce   others   which 


(')  "Antiquities  of  the  Christian  Church,"  by  Bingham,  vol.  i.,  p.  132. 
C)  "  Universal  Church  History,"  by  Alzog,*pp.  39G,  397,  God,  etc. 


COLLEGE  OF  CARDINALS  ESTABLISHED.  671 

have  since  become  necessary  to  the  life  of  the  papacy.  En- 
gaged as  he  was  in  consolidating  a  vast  spiritual  despotism, 
he  was  sagacious  enough  to  know  that  his  success  would  be 
in  proportion  to  the  removal  of  its  power  and  authority  from 
the  people.  Therefore,  he  employed  his  vigorous  mind,  not 
only  while  the  confidential  adviser  of  four  popes,  but  more 
especially  after  he  became  pope  himself,  "  to  render  all  au- 
thority, civil  and  religious,  dependent  on  the  fiat  of  the 
Holy  See;  to  place  thrones  and  mitres  alike  at  the  papal 
disposal ;  and  to  realize  what  had  long  floated  dimly  before 
the  eyes  of  preceding  pontiffs,  an  object  of  desire  rather  than 
of  hope,  the  sceptre  of  the  universe  sw^ayed  by  the  succes- 
sor of  St.  Peter  as  vicegerent  of  the  Almighty."(^)  Chiefest 
among  the  means  of  consummating  this  object  was  the  re- 
moval of  all  popular  influences  from  the  election  of  the  pope, 
so  that  the  ecclesiastical  constitution  should  provide  for  a 
pure  theocracy,  with  imperial  powers.  This  he  accomplish- 
ed by  vesting  it  exclusively  in  the  college  of  cardinals,  des- 
ignated and  appointed  by  the  pope ;  by  compelling  all  prel- 
ates and  laymen  to  bind  themselves,  under  the  most  solemn 
obligations,  to  the  See  of  Rome;  and  visiting  them  with 
curses,  anathemas,  and  excommunications  in  the  event  of  their 
disobedience.  So  powerful  was  the  influence  he  exercised 
upon  his  age,  and  so  indelibly  did  he  impress  his  principles 
upon  the  constitution  of  the  papacy,  that  those  of  his  succes- 
sors who  have  imitated  his  usurpations  have  sheltered  them- 
selves behind  his  great  name.  And  this  has  been  done  so 
frequently,  with  the  apparent  acquiescence  of  the  laity,  that 
at  last  what  was  originally  the  conception  of  overweening 
ambition  has  come  to  be  considered  as  the  infallible  teach- 
ing of  God  —  as  an  essential  part  of  his  eternal  truth.  If 
some  of  these  successors  did  impair  the  strength  .of  the  sys- 
tem he  had  constructed  by  vices  which  outraged  the  Chris- 
tian sentiment  of  the  world,  the  present  pope,  by  his  exem- 
plary life  and  piety,  has  been  enabled,  in  some  measure,  to 
win  back  their  losses.  He  has,  at  least,  done  so  to  the  ex- 
tent of  being  enabled  to  turn  all  his  papal  artillery  upon 
the  liberalizing  and  tolerant  opinions  of  the  nineteenth  cent- 

O  "  Church  History,"  by  Baxter,  p.  211. 


GV2  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

uiy,  and  of  finding  multitudes  of  followers  who  agree  with 
liini  in  the  pretense  that  Hildebrand,  no  less  than  himself, 
was  the  infallible  representative  of  Christ  on  earth. 

"We  must  no  longer  look,  tlien,  to  the  laity  of  the  Roman 
Churcli  for  its  faith  or  discipline.  They  have  nothing  to  do 
with  either,  except  to  obey  Avhatsoever  is.  prescribed  to 
them.  And  this  obedience  is  required  to  be  so  comprehen- 
sive and  unlimited  as  to  include  all  that  has  been  in  the 
past,  now  is  in  the  present,  and  may  hereafter  be  in  the  fut- 
ure. Their  whole  duty  is  involved  in  the  simple  act  of 
submission.  Consequently,  if  there  are  here  and  there  some 
of  them,  or  even  many,  who  are  liberal  and  tolerant,  and 
therefore  not  aggressive,  they  either  hush  up  these  senti- 
ments in  their  own  breasts,  or,  if  they  express  them,  have 
not  authority  sufficient  to  make  them  felt,  if  even  known,  at 
Rome.  The  papacy  is  reached  only  through  the  hierarchy, 
and  they  are  sworn  to  obey  the  pope  implicitly,  and  to  pre- 
serve and  extend  his  royalties.  He  imparts  a  portion  of 
his  infallibility  to  them  in  the  execution  of  their  theocrat- 
ic functions,  and  through  them  to  the  laity  in  the  single 
act  of  obedience.  The  strength  of  the  papacy  is  by  these 
means  left  unimpaired,  and,  in  so  far  as  the  claim  of  uni- 
versal supremacy  is  concerned,  it  is  set  forth  as  boldly  and 
defiantly  as  when  Gregory  VII.  hurled  his  thunders  of  ex- 
communication and  anathema  at  tlie  head  of  tlie  German 
emperor. 

What  government  has  ever  existed  which  has  recognized 
freedom  of  religious  belief  and  worship  while  submissive  to 
the  authority  of  the  papacy?  In  all  history  there  is  no  ac- 
count of  any  such.  Wheresoever  it  has  been  done,  the  popes 
have  considered  it  an  act  of  disobedience  to  them,  and  dealt 
with  it  accordingly.  In  all  the  forms  of  bulls  and  bi'iefs 
they  have  condemned  and  denounced  it  as  heresy.  Pius  IX. 
has  done  so  in  his  Syllabus  and  other  official  papers.  Wlien 
the  Austrian  Government,  in  1855,  abolished  the  Concordat, 
allowing  liberty  for  all  opinions — liberty  of  the  press,  of  faith, 
and  of  instruction  in  the  schools — he  characterized  the  act 
as  inimical  to  the  Church,  as  "  in  flagrant  contradiction  with 
the  doctrines  of  the  Catholic  religion ;"  and,  by  virtue  of 
power  which  he  claimed  to  have  derived  directly  from  Christ, 


ROMAN  CATHOLICS  IN  MARYLAND.  673 

he  declared  all  the  acts  and  decrees  in  that  respect  "  null  and 
powerless  in  themselves  and  in  their  effect,  both  as  regards 
the  present  and  the  future."  And  he  threatened  all  engaged 
in  their  execution  with  the  censures  of  the  Church  and  with 
excommunication.  (*)  These  threats  have  been  executed  by 
the  proclamation  of  excommunication,  in  1869,  of  all  here- 
tics, "whatever  their  name,  and  to  what  sect  soever  belong- 
ing, and  those  who  believe  in  them,  and  their  receivers,  pro- 
moters, and  defenders  ;"(^)  so  that  the  pontifical  curse  is  now 
resting  upon  all  the  institutions  of  Protestantism,  and  upon 
all  liberal  and  tolerant  opinions,  wheresoever  they  are  to  be 
found  in  the  world.  When,  therefore,  we  talk  about  what 
the  Church  of  Rome  teaches  and  allows  in  reference  to  free- 
dom of  religion,  of  the  press,  and  of  speech,  such  as  is  se- 
cured by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  we  must 
look,  not  to  what  is  done  and  said  by  exceptional  individ- 
uals, or  even  by  communities  of  liberal  tendencies,  but  to 
the  pope  alone.  He  is  the  Church,  and  absorbs  in  himself 
whatsoever  power  it  possesses,  in  all  its  height,  depth,  length, 
and  breadth.  The  pen  of  inspiration  has  instructed  us  that 
"  God  is  not  a  man,"  but  the  pope  tells  us  that  he,  of  all  the 
earth,  possesses  the  attributes  of  God,  and  must,  therefore, 
prescribe  the  faith,  reward  the  faithful,  and  punish  the  dis- 
obedient. 

There  are  two  memorable  events  in  history  which  are 
sometimes  referred  to  by  defenders  of  the  papacy  to  show 
that  such  accusations  as  the  foregoing  are  unjust  and  un- 
merited :  the  granting  of  Magna  Charta ;  and  the  introduc- 
tion of  religious  liberty  into  the  Colony  of  Maryland.  If  this 
defense  were  designed  only  to  show  that  there  had  been,  and 
yet  existed,  numbers  of  Roman  Catholics  who  approved  the 
principles  involved  in  these  great  measures,  it  would  be  per- 
fectly legitimate,  and  nobody  could  object,  for  that  is  an  un- 
doubted fact.  But  it  is  not  so  limited.  On  the  other  hand, 
it  is  placed  to  the  credit  of  the  papacy,  which  is  not  in  any 
sense  entitled  to  it.     As  to  Magna  Charta,  we  have  seen 


(*)  See  the  pope's  allocution,  delivered  June  2d,  1855,  in  consistory  at 
Rome,  Appletons'  "Annual  Cyclopedia"  for  1868,  pp.  675,  676. 
C)  Ibid.,  for  1869,  p.  619. 

43 


674  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

that  the  barons  of  England  incurred  the  displeasure  of  Pope 
Innocent  III.  for  extorting  it  from  King  John,  and  that  he 
excommunicated  them  for  doing  so;  and  that  he  released 
the  king  from  his  sworn  obligation  to  observe  it,  as  he  also 
did  several  of  his  successors.  We  have  seen,  too,  the  direct 
conflict  between  the  principles  it  expressed  and  those  which 
pertain  to  the  papal  system.  The  other  inquiry — whether 
the  papacy  is  entitled  to  any  credit  for  religious  toleration 
in  Maryland — comes  more  directly  home  to  the  people  of 
the  United  States ;  which  makes  the  investigation  of  it  of 
more  immediate  concern  to  us. 

The  Colony  of  Virginia  was  settled  under  several  royal 
charters.  That  which  erected  it  into  "a  corporation  and 
body  politic"  w^as  dated  May  23d,  1609,  and  was  granted 
by  James  I.  The  district  of  country  included  within  the 
colonial  limits  extended  "from  sea  to  sea,  west  and  north- 
west," and  included  all  of  what  afterward  became  the  Colo- 
ny, and  is  now  the  State,  of  Maryland.  One  of  the  purposes 
expressed  in  this  charter  was  "  the  conversion  and  reduction 
of  the  people  in  those  parts  unto  the  true  worship  of  God 
and  Christian  religion."  And  inasmuch  as  the  true  wor- 
ship was  at  that  time  in  England  considered  to  be  that  pro- 
vided by  the  Established  Church,  in  opposition  to  that  of 
Rome,  King  James  further  said,  "We  should  be  loath  that 
any  person  should  be  permitted  to  pass  that  we  suspected  to 
aflTect  the  superstitions  of  the  Church  of  Rome."  It  required 
also  that  the  English  oath  of  supremacy  should  be  taken  by 
all  the  colonists.  By  these  provisions  of  the  charter,  there- 
fore, Roman  Catholics  were  positively  prohibited  from  set- 
tling in  any  part  of  the  colony.  Other  and  subsequent  pro- 
visions were  designed  to  enforce  this  exclusion.  By  royal 
instructions  issued  to  the  governor  in  1621,  the  colony  was 
required  "to  keep  up  the  religion  of  the  Church  of  England 
as  near  as  may  be."  In  obedience  to  these  instructions,  the 
General  Assembly  of  Virginia  —  the  first  that  ever  met  in 
the  United  States — enacted  a  law  providing  "  that  there  be 
uniformity  in  our  church  as  neere  as  may  be  to  the  canons 
in  England,  both  in  substance  and  circumstance ;  and  that 
all  persons  yield  readie  obedience  unto  them  under  paine 
This  was  also  repeated  in  1629  and  1631,  be- 


LORD  BALTIMORE.  675 

fore  the  charter  to  colonize  Maryland  had  been  granted  to 
Lord  Baltimore.  (') 

The  condition  of  things  existing  in  the  Colony  of  Virginia 
was  not  at  all  satisfactory  to  the  king.  The  first  legisla- 
tive assembly  had  met  at  Jamestown  in  1619,  each  borough 
sending  a  representative.  The  impulse  given  to  popular 
freedom  by  this  means  excited  his  apprehension  that  the 
monarchical  principles  he  desired  to  plant  in  the  New  World 
might  be  endangered.  He  manifestly  feared  that  if  the 
right  of  representation  in  the  Colonial  Legislature  were 
granted  to  the  people,  it  would,  in  the  end,  result  in  organiz- 
ing a  formidable  opposition  to  his  own  authority.  And  be- 
ing a  monarchist  in  the  strictest  sense,  he  therefore  resolved 
at  once  to  bring  the  colonists  into  complete  subjugation. 
For  this  purpose  he  resorted  to  several  wrongful  and  op- 
pressive measures.  He  commanded  that  a  number  of  fel- 
ons, unfit  to  remain  in  England,  should  be  transported  to  the 
colony;  and  also  made  the  most  grinding  exactions  upon 
the  people  in  order  to  draw  off  their  wealth,  and  thereby  to 
supply  his  own  treasury.  This  injustice,  which  violated  the 
chartered  rights  of  the  colonists,  they  could  not  endure  with- 
out remonstrance  ;  and  when  they  did  undertake  to  set  forth 
their  grievances,  and  to  appeal  to  the  settled  principles  of  the 
law  of  England  for  protection,  they  were  regarded  as  sedi- 
tious. This  furnished  a  pretext,  in  1622,  for  an  attempt  to 
destroy  the  charter.  The  first  step  to  this  end  was  to  es- 
tablish in  England  the  entire  governing  power  of  the  colony, 
and  thus  deprive  the  people  of  all  agency  in  making  their 
own  laws  and  managing  their  own  affairs,  which  was  secured 
to  them  in  the  charter  as  pertaining  to  "  the  privileges,  fran- 
chises, liberties,  and  immunities  "  which  belonged  to  all  En- 
glishmen. This  scheme  of  government,  as  a  substitute  for 
the  charter,  was  laid  before  the  colonists,  who  were  told  that 
if  they  did  not  accept  it,  they  would  be  crushed  by  the  pow- 
er of  the  king.  Not  at  all  intimidated  by  this  threat,  they 
rejected  the  proposition  with  indignation,  being  resolved  to 
cling  to  their  chartered  rights.     The  king,  therefore,  found 

(')  "  Henning's  [Virginia]  Statutes  at  Large,"  vol.  i.,  pp.  97,  98, 114, 123, 
149, 155. 


676  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

it  necessary  to  resort  to  a  more  direct  measure.  He  caused 
a  writ  of  quo  warranto  to  be  issued  from  the  Court  of  King's 
Bench  in  England  to  declare  the  charter  forfeited.  The  col- 
onists could  not,  of  course,  make  any  successful  defense  to 
this,  for  the  king  could  easily  find  the  means,  in  those  days, 
to  bring  the  judges  over  to  the  royal  side  if  they  were  other- 
wise inclined.  The  English  law  gave  the  court  no  jurisdic- 
tion over  the  whole  body  of  colonists,  and  they  rightfully 
decided  to  treat  whatever  judgment  should  be  pronounced 
against  them  as  null  and  void.  The  judgment  of  forfeiture 
was  arbitrarily  rendered  in  1625,  just  before  the  death  of 
King  James,  but  no  steps  were  taken  toward  its  execution 
before  that  event.  Charles  I.,  who  succeeded  him,  took  up 
the  matter  where  his  father  had  left  it,  and  in  one  of  his 
proclamations  assigned  all  the  misfortunes  in  the  colony  to 
what  he  called  "  corporate  democracy."  His  principal  effort, 
therefore,  was  to  destroy  entirely  the  representative  form  of 
government  inaugurated  in  1619.  To  this  end  he  appointed 
a  governor  and  council  with  powers  as  royal  as  he  himself 
possessed.  But  the  people  were  determined  not  to  give  up 
their  General  Assembly,  and  it  continued  to  meet  at  regular 
periods,  passing  such  laws  as  we  have  seen,  in  strict  conform- 
ity to  those  of  England.  They  cherished  the  rights  of  En- 
glishmen too  fervently  to  surrender  them  at  the  mere  dicta- 
tion of  the  royal  power,  or  in  obedience  to  the  illegal  judg- 
ment of  a  court  subservient  to  it. 

In  1628,  Lord  Baltimore  visited  Virginia.  This  nobleman 
was  a  monarchist  both  from  inclination  and  education.  He 
was  so  devoted  to  the  interests  of  the  king  as  to  have  be- 
come a  special  favorite  of  both  James  I.  and  Charles  I.  He 
had  many  excellent  and  ennobling  qualities,  which  made 
him  exceedingly  popular.  In  1624 — only  four  years  before 
— he  had  become  a  Roman  Catholic.  When  he  reached 
Virginia  he  found  the  English  Episcopal  Church  established 
by  law,  and  also  a  legal  requirement  that,  in  becoming  a  citi- 
zen, he  should  take  the  English  oath  of  supremacy.  This  he 
could  not  do  consistently  with  his  new  religious  convictions. 
He  was  willing,  as  all  the  papists  in  England  were,  to  take 
the  oath  of  allegiance,  which  involved  merely  the  support  of 
the  kingly  prerogative,  but  not  that  of  supremacy,  which  de- 


MARYLAND  CHARTER.  677 

nied  the  authority  of  the  pope.  Consequently  he  did  not 
unite  himself  with  the  colonists.  But  being  delighted  with 
the  climate,  soil,  and  scenery  about  the  Chesapeake  Bay  and 
Potomac  River,  he  formed  the  design  of  obtaining  a  charter 
from  King  Charles  authorizing  him  to  make  a  settlement 
there,  in  entire  disregard  of  the  rights  of  the  Virginia  colony. 
Upon  that  question,  being  a  monarchist,  he,  of  course,  took 
sides  with  the  king — both  having  an  equal  disregard  for  the 
rights  of  the  people  when  they  came  in  conflict  with  the 
prerogatives  of  royalty.  He  relied  manifestly  upon  his  well- 
known  devotion  to  these  principles  for  his  success  with  the 
king.  And  in  this  he  was  not  disappointed;  for  Charles 
was  not  only  disposed  to  oblige  him  personally,  but  was  re- 
solved upon  punishing  the  seditious  colonists  of  Virginia, 
notwithstanding  they  rigidly  maintained  the  religious  w^or- 
ship  established  by  the  laws  of  England. 

The  charter  to  Lord  Baltimore  was  granted  in  1632;  but 
in  consequence  of  his  death  it  was  transferred  to  his  son, 
who  took  his  title.  It  granted  the  tract  of  country  lying  on 
both  sides  of  the  Chesapeake  Bay  and  north  of  the  Potomac, 
up  to  the  fortieth  parallel  of  latitude — the  whole  of  which 
was  within  the  limits  of  the  Virginia  colony.f)  This  char- 
ter contained  the  celebrated  provision  that  while  Christianity 
was  made  the  law  of  the  colony,  yet  no  preference  should 
be  given  "to  any  sect,"  but  "equality  in  religious  rights, 
not  less  than  in  civil  freedom,"  was  secured. (^)  This  con- 
stitutes the  groundwork  of  the  Roman  Catholic  claim  of 
toleration  in  the  United  States.  A  critical  examination  of 
it  will  demonstrate  not  only  that  this  claim  is  groundless, 
but  also  what  was  understood  by  Charles  I.  and  the  elder 
Lord  Baltimore  by  giving  security  to  civil  freedom  in  Mary- 
land— in  other  words,  by  granting  the  right  of  legislation  to 
those  Roman  Catholics  who  should  emigrate  to  the  colony. 

The  English  oath  of  supremacy  had  been  established  one 
hundred  years  before  the  date  of  this  charter.  This  oath 
required  that  every  subject  should  recognize  the  king  as  the 


C')  "History  of  Virginia,"  by  Howison,  vol.  i.,  p.  270;   "History  of  the 
United  States,"  by  Bancroft,  vol.  i.,  pp.  238-241. 
C)  Bancroft,  p.  243. 


678  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

supreme  head  of  the  Church  of  England  ;  that  the  Pope  of 
Rome  had  no  more  jurisdiction  than  any  other  bishop ;  and 
that  obedience  to  him  should  be  renounced.  (^)  This  was 
not  only  the  law  in  England,  but  it  was  also  the  law  in  the 
Colony  of  Virginia.  It  was  because  of  this  that  Lord  Balti- 
more could  not  become  a  citizen  of  the  latter  colony.  'Now 
when  this,  and  the  further  fact  that  the  territory  granted  to 
him  was  within  the  limits  of  the  Virginia  colony,  are  ob- 
served, it  will  be  seen  that  he  could  have  accomplished  no 
possible  object  designed  by  him  without  a  provision  for  re- 
ligious toleration  in  his  charter.  He  was  about  to  under- 
take a  settlement  in  a  region  of  the  New  World  where  there 
was  an  existing  form  of  religion  established  by  law,  which, 
in  his  conscience,  he  entirely  repudiated — which  he  had  re- 
nounced only  four  years  before  as  contrary  to  the  law  of 
God,  and  which,  if  he  remained  true  to  his  religious  convic- 
tions and  papal  obedience,  he  would  feel  it  his  duty  not 
merely  to  oppose,  but  to  exterminate.  Like  other  papists  of 
that  day,  and  the  advocates  of  the  pope's  infallibility  now, 
he  favored  religious  toleration  in  a  Protestant  country — 
that  is,  such  toleration  as  would  enable  him  to  maintain  the 
cause  of  the  papacy  in  the  midst  of  Protestantism  as  the 
means  of  rooting  out  the  Protestant  religion,  and  securing 
the  establishment  of  the  Roman  Catholic  by  law.  His  only 
means  of  getting  rid  of  the  oath  of  supremacy  in  the  Colony 
of  Virginia  was  to  get  the  king  so  far  to  set  it  aside,  with- 
out authority  of  law  and  by  his  royal  will  alone,  as  to  allow 
him  to  colonize  part  of  the  territory  with  Roman  Catholics 
— this  being,  at  that  time,  the  only  possible  means  of  intro- 
ducing that  class  of  population  into  the  colonies.  Hence, 
the  provision  for  religious  toleration  was  a  matter  of  neces- 
sity, not  choice,  with  Lord  Baltimore. 

On  the  part  of  the  king  there  was  one  principal  object 
to  be  attained  by  the  establishment  of  the  new  colony.  As 
Lord  Baltimore  was  a  thorough  monarchist,  it  was  expected 
of  him  that  he  would  check  the  tendency  among  the  Vir- 
ginia colonists  toward  popular  liberty,  and  so  employ  the 
right  of  legislation  granted  to  the  Maryland  colonists  as  to 

O  "  History  of  England,"  by  Rapin,  vol.  vii.,  p.  480. 


ROYAL  FAVOR  SECURED.  679 

preserve  the  monarchical  principle  ;  which  Charles  well  un- 
derstood to  be  an  established  feature  of  the  papal  system. 
This  object  was  so  near  the  heart  of  Charles  that  he  was 
quite  willing  that  the  established  religion  should  be  sacri- 
ficed, if  it  could  be  done  in  no  other  way.  Although  he  had 
no  power  by  the  law  of  England  to  set  aside  the  oath  of  su- 
premacy, yet  he  could  even  venture  to  defy  the  authority  of 
Parliament  in  order  to  punish  the  Virginia  colonists  for  dar- 
ing to  assert  their  just  rights  as  Englishmen.  He  may,  in- 
deed, have  had,  and  possibly  did  have,  another  motive  be- 
yond this :  the  subversion  of^the  English  Church  in  the  col- 
onies and  the  establishment  of  the  Roman  Catholic  by  law. 
It  is  very  well  known  to  the  readers  of  English  history  that 
both  Charles  I.  and  his  father,  James  L,  while  professedly 
Protestants,  were  inclined  to  favor  the  papists  as  far  as  they 
dared  to  go.  During  the  reign  of  Charles  the  laws  were 
not  executed  against  them,  and  they  were  allowed  to  go  un- 
punished for  refusing  to  take  the  oath  of  supremacy,  when- 
ever they  consented  to  swear  allegiance  to  him.('°)  By  this 
latter  oath  they  assured  themselves  of  his  royal  favor  to 
such  an  extent  that  they  contributed  greatly  toward  the 
general  policy  of  his  administration.  They  were  allowed 
publicly  to  celebrate  mass  at  Somerset-house,  especially  un- 
der the  royal  protection.  A  papal  nuncio  resided  in  Lon- 
don, and  his  house  was  their  general  rendezvous.  The 
queen  was  an  acknowledged  and  fanatical  papist.  It  is, 
therefore,  quite  certain  that  they  materially  aided  the  con- 
vocation and  Archbishop  Laud  in  implanting  in  the  mind 
of  Charles  an  intense  hatred  of  the  Presbyterians  and  Puri- 
tans. (^^)  And  as  the  influence  of  the  latter  was  beginning, 
about  that  time,  to  create  a  sentiment  in  the  Plymouth  col- 
ony, like  that  in  Virginia,  in  favor  of  the  principles  of  pop- 
ular government,  it  was  probably  an  easy  matter  for  Lord 
Baltimore  to  obtain  from  Charles  the  charter  of  1632.  Both 
of  them  thought  alike  upon  the  political  questions  likely  to 
be  involved  in  the  settlement  of  the  new  colony ;  and  these 


(")  Rapin,  vol.  xi.,p.  89. 

(")  Ibid.,  vol.  X.,  p.  435;  "  History  of  the  Rebellion,"  by  the  Earl  of  Clar- 
endon, Oxford  ed.,  vol.  i.,  p.  243. 


680  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

were  considered  by  Charles  as  of  more  consequence  than 
the  religious  worship  established  by  the  English  law. 

Thus,  when  all  these  facts  are  taken  into  account,  the  con- 
clusion is  a  natural  if  not  unavoidable  one — that  the  inser- 
tion of  the  provision  in  favor  of  religious  toleration  in  the 
Maryland  charter  was  alone  for  the  objects  and  purposes 
already  suggested.  So  far  as  Lord  Baltimore  himself  was 
concerned,  it  was  undoubtedly  a  necessity  with  him.  He  did 
not  take  it  in  that  form  because  he  favored  religious  tolera- 
tion in  a  broad  and  liberal  sense,  even  if  he  did  so  favor  it, 
but  because  it  was  the  only  mode  by  which  he  could  main- 
tain Roman  Catholicism  in  opposition  to  the  existing  law 
of  the  Virginia  colony.  By  precisely  the  same  process  of 
reasoning  as  may  have  influenced  him.  Pope  Pius  IX.  is  in 
favor  of  religious  toleration  in  the  United  States,  but  not  at 
Rome ;  and  so  with  his  hierarchy  all  over  the  world. 

The  second  Lord  Baltimore  did  not  accompany  his  colo- 
nists to  America.  They  were  placed  under  the  care  of  Leon- 
ard Calvert,  his  brother,  who  arrived  in  Virginia  with  two 
hundred  Roman  Catholics  in  1634.  They  visited  James- 
town, where  they  were  notified  by  the  governor  and  council 
that  their  grant  was  considered  as  an  encroachment  upon 
the  rights  of  Virginia.  (''^)  They  then  sailed  up  the  Chesa- 
peake, and  established  a  colony  which  tftey  called  Maryland, 
in  honor  of  Henrietta  Maria,  the  Roman  Catholic  queen  of 
Charles  1.  Upon  Kent's  Island,  near  the  present  city  of  An- 
napolis, they  found  a  settlement  of  Virginians,  already  made 
under  the  authority  of  the  Virginia  charter.  They  demand- 
ed of  these  that  their  jurisdiction  and  authority  at  Kent's 
Island  should  be  immediately  recognized.  The  Virginians 
not  consenting  to  this,  which  they  considered  an  invasion 
of  their  colonial  rights,  hostilities  were  commenced.  Their 
leader  was  seized  by  Calvert  and  his  party,  tried,  and  con- 
victed of  sedition  and  other  crimes,  and  would  doubtless 
have  been  executed  if  he  had  not  succeeded  in  making  his 
escape  to  Jamestown,  where  he  demanded  the  protection  of 
the  governor,  who  was  then  Sir  John  Harvey.  No  effective 
steps  were  taken  by  him ;  and  he  was  suspected  of  favoring 

C^)  Howison,  vol.  i.,  p.  270. 


USURPATION  BY  LORD  BALTIMORE.  681 

the  views  of  the  king,  and  of  Calvert  also.  On  this  account 
he  became  so  odious  to  the  Virginia  colonists  that  he  was 
removed  by  the  General  Assembly,  and  sent  back  to  En- 
gland. But  he  was  restored  by  the  king,  who  was  not  dis- 
posed to  listen  to  any  popular  complaints,  or  to  do  any  thing 
to  protect  the  Virginians.  (*^) 

The  facts  thus  far  stated  may  be  found  in  the  general  his- 
tories of  those  times ;  but  any  careful  student  of  them  will 
readily  perceive  that  many  things  are  omitted  which  are 
necessary  to  a  perfect  understanding  of  the  early  history 
of  the  Maryland  colony,  especially  in  so  far  as  religious  tol- 
eration was  concerned.  One  reason  for  this  is  found  in  the 
fact  that  hitherto  it  has  been  deemed  expedient  by  Protest- 
ants to  permit  the  claim  of  Roman  Catholic  toleration  to  go 
unchallenged,  as  there  was  nothing  to  be  gained  by  contro- 
verting it,  and  its  evident  tendency  was  to  keep  alive  that 
sentiment  in  the  minds  of  the  multitude  of  Roman  Catho- 
lic laymen  to  whom  it  is  most  acceptable.  But  now,  when 
this  claim  is  set  up  with  such  apparent  candor,  and  so  much 
is  demanded. on  account  of  it,  it  has  become  necessary  that 
it  shall  be  more  particularly  examined  and  accurately  under- 
stood. And  it  is  fortunate  that  we  are  not  entirely  with- 
out the  means  of  doing  so. 

In  1655,  soon  after  these  events  occurred,  there  was  pub- 
lished in  Westminster  Hall,  London,  an  account  of  the  set- 
tlement of  the  Maryland  colony,  wherein  it  was  shown,  by 
facts  and  arguments  which  could  not  be  easily  overthrown, 
that  the  patent  of  Lord  Baltimore  was  illegal,  and  that  un- 
der it  the  younger  Lord  Baltimore  had  usurped  royal  juris- 
diction and  prerogatives  in  violation  of  the  laws  and  liber- 
ties of  the  English  nation,  and  of  the  just  rights  of  the  Vir- 
ginia colonists.  In  order  to  demonstrate  this,  a  relation 
was  given  of  the  leading  incidents  connected  with  the  re- 
bellion of  the  Roman  Catholic  colonists  against  the  existing 
government  organized  under  the  Virginia  charter.  Some 
years  ago,  this  account,  along  with  many  others  connected 
with  our  colonial  history,  was  put  in  an  accessible  form  by 
a  gentleman  who,  during  his  life,  was  greatly  esteemed  for 

(")  Howison,  vol.  i.,  p.  273. 


682  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

his  erudition  as  well  as  for  his  painstaking  in  collecting  to- 
gether the  materials  of  our  early  history.  From  this  source 
the  facts  now  to  be  related  have  been  obtained.  (^*) 

After  speaking  of  the  seizure  and  confiscation  of  vessels 
belonging  to  the  Virginians  who  had  been  trading  with  the 
natives  of  Maryland  for  a  number  6f  years,  under  proper  and 
legal  authority  derived  from  their  Colonial  Government,  and 
the  invalidity  of  the  Maryland  charter,  which  it  was  alleged 
Lord  Baltimore  had  obtained  by  falsely  representing  the 
country  as  unsettled,  it  thus  speaks  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
colonists : 

"And  professing  an  establishment  of  the  Romish  religion 
07ily^  they  suppressed  the  poor  Protestants  among  them,  and 
carried  on  the  whole  frame  of  their  Government  in  the  Lord 
Proprietaries  name ;  all  their  Proceedings,  Judicature,  Try- 
als,  and  Warrants,  in  his  name,  Power  and  Dignity,  and  from 
him  onely ;  not  the  least  mention  of  the  Sovereign  Authori- 
ty of  England  in  all  their  Government ;  to  that  purpose, 
forceably  imposing  Oaths  (judged  illegal  in  a  Report  made 
by  a  Committee  of  the  Council  of  State,  1652),  to  maintain 
his  royal  Jurisdictions,  Prerogatives,  and  Dominions,  as  ab- 
solute Lord  and  Proprietary,  to  protect  chiefly  the  Roman 
Catholic  religion  in  the  free  exercise  thereof;  and  all  done 
by  yeerly  Instructions  from  him  out  of  England,  as  if  he  had 
been  absolute  Prince  and  King."(^^) 

There  is  no  difliculty  in  seeing  the  object  and  precise  nat- 
ure of  the  oaths  prescribed  by  Lord  Baltimore  for  all  of- 
ficers and  citizens,  when  it  is  considered  that  both  by  the 
laws  of  England  and  those  existing  in  the  colony  at  the  time 
of  his  settlement,  the  English  Episcopal  was  the  established 
Church.  And  while  the  practice  of  religious  toleration  was 
compulsory,  beijig  provided  for  in  the  charter,  it  is  undoubt- 
edly true  that  these  oaths  were  specially  designed  to  give 
undue  preference  to  the  Roman  Catholic  colonists — a  prefer- 
ence destructive  of  the  equality  which  the  charter  was  de- 
signed to  establish.     This  is  one  of  the  requirements : 

('*)  "  Historical  Tracts,"  collected  and  printed  by  Peter  Force,  Washing- 
ton City,  1838.  See  tract  entitled  "  Virginia  and  Maryland ;  or,  The  Lord 
Baltimore's  Case  Uncased  and  Answered,"  etc.,  vol.  ii. 

0  7Z*/(f.,p.  5. 


ALLEGIANCE  REQUIRED  BY  LORD  BALTIMORE.      683 

"And  I  do  further  swear  I  will  not  by  my  selfe,  nor  any 
other  person  directly,  trouble,  molest,  or  discountenance  any 
person  whatsoever  in  the  said  province  professing  to  believe 
in  Jesus  Christ,  and  in  particular  no  Roman  Catholick,  for 
or  in  respect  of  his  or  her  Religion,  nor  his  or  her  free  exer- 
cise thereof  within  the  said  province,  so  as  they  be  not  un- 
faithful to  his  said  Lordship  or  molest  or  conspire  against 
the  civill  Government  established  under  him."('^) 

We  must  necessarily  look  to  the  character  of  the  civil 
government  established  by  Lord  Baltimore,  in  order  to  as- 
certain the  obligations  imposed  by  this  oath.  The  oath  of 
fidelity  to  him  required  that  he  should  be  acknowledged  "  to 
be  the  true  and  absolute  Lord  and  Proprietary  "  of  the  col- 
ony; that  "true  faith"  should  be  rendered  to  him  and  his 
heirs,  and  that  his  and  their  "  Right,  Title,  Interest,  Privi- 
ledges.  Royal  Jurisdiction,  Prerogative,  Propriety  and  Do- 
minion over"  the  colony  should  be  maintained.(^^)  Here 
was  a  manifest  attempt  to  substitute  his  own  royal  power 
for  that  of  the  king,  to  whom  all  the  original  colonists  were 
ready  and  willing  to  pay  obedience.  But  the  same  is  fur- 
ther shown  by  the  commissions,  writs,  and  processes  that 
were  issued.  The  law  of  England  required  all  these  to  issue 
in  the  name  of  the  "Keepers  of  the  Liberty  of  England;" 
but,  in  disobedience  of  this  requirement,  they  were  issued  in 
his  name  —  a  clear  usurpation  of  royal  jurisdiction  and  do- 
minion. (^^)  The  plan  of  government  constructed  by  means 
of  these  usurped  powers  and  prerogatives  became  such  that 
the  Protestant  inhabitants  of  the  colony  who  were  loyal  to 
England  could  not  conscientiously  take  this  oath,  because  it 
imposed  the  obligation  of  violating  the  law  of  the  mother 
country.  Whether  that  law  was  right  or  wrong  is  not  now 
necessary  to  be  inquired  into ;  it  was  in  accordance  with  the 
spirit  of  that,  though  not  of  the  present  age.  It  prescribed 
the  line  of  duty  for  all  English  citizens,  whether  at  home  or 
in  the  colonies,  and  these  Maryland  colonists  by  violating  it 
would  have  been  subjected  to  prosecutions  for  sedition  and 


('")  "Historical  Tracts, " collected  and  printed  by  Peter  Force,  Washing- 
ton Citv,  1838,  pp.  23,  24,  26. 

C)  ibid.,  p.  25.  ■'  ♦  C')  Ibid.,  p.  10. 


684  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

treason.  All  this  Lord  Baltimore  knew  perfectly  well,  and 
therefore  he  prescribed  an  oath  of  fidelity  to  himself  of  such 
a  nature  that  a  loyal  Protestant  could  not  take  it,  being  well 
assured,  at  the  same  time,  that  the  Roman  Catholics  would 
all  do  so.  And  to  show  the  little  favor  he  was  disposed  to 
exhibit  toward  those  who  should  refuse — if,  indeed,  he  did 
not  design  to  drive  out  the  Protestants  entirely — he  caused 
a  proclamation  to  be  issued  to  the  effect  "  that  all  such  per- 
sons so  refusing  shall  be  forever  debarred  from  any  Right 
or  claim  to  the  Lands  they  now  enjoy  and  live  on ;"  that  is, 
their  property  should  be  confiscated ;  and  "  his  Lordship's 
Governor"  was  instructed  "to  cause  the  said  lands  to  be 
entred,  and  seized  upon  to  his  Lordship's  use."(''') 

As  might  well  be  supposed,  the  results  were  just  what  Lord 
Baltimore  designed  they  should  be,  and  are  fully  set  forth  in 
this  tract.  "  Papists  and  Priests  and  Jesuits  "  flocked  into 
the  colony.  "  Papist  Governors  and  Counselors,  dedicated  to 
St.  Ignatius,"  filled  the  offices.  The  Protestants  were  "  mis- 
erably disturbed  in  the  Exercise  of  their  Religion."  A  num- 
ber of  "  illegal  Executions  and  Murthers  "  occurred.  There 
were  "Imprisonments,  Confiscations  of  many  men's  Estates, 
and  of  widows' and  orphans',  to  the  destruction  of  many  Fam- 
ilies." Those  who  would  not  take  the  oath  were  disarmed 
and  plundered.  "  Popish  Officers  "  were  appointed,  "  outing 
those  "  who  were  previously  in  office.  "  Lands  and  Planta- 
tions" were  seized  and  confiscated.  And  it  can  not  fail  to 
arrest  attention  that  all  these  persecutions  were  visited  upon 
Protestants,  while  not  one  Roman  Catholic  suffiered  from 
them!(")  As  for  these,  they  were  so  favored  that  if  one 
of  them  was  called  "  Papish  Priest,  Jesuite,  Jesuited  Papist," 
etc.,  the  offender  forfeited  a  penalty  often  pounds  !"(") 

The  inferior  position  occupied  by  laymen  in  those  days 
should  relieve  them  from  any  responsibility  for  these  meas- 
ures. The  civil  authority  of  the  colony  was  entirely  in  the 
hands  of  those  appointed  by  Lord  Baltimore,  who,  as  it  ap- 
pears, selected  Roman  Catholic  agents  exclusively.     At  that 


(")  "Historical  Tracts,"  collected  and  printed  by  Peter  Force,  Washing- 
ton City,  1888,  p.  35. 

C°)  ibid.,  pp.  12, 13, 16,  30,  31.  (")  Ibid.,  p.  27. 


THE  JESUITS  IN  MARYLAND.  685 

time,  in  England,  the  papists  were  chiefly  under  the  influ- 
ence of  the  Jesuits,  whose  vigilance  was  too  sleepless  to  per- 
mit this  opportunity  of  planting  their  society  in  the  New 
World  to  escape  them.  How  far  they  had  the  sympathy 
and  support  of  Lord  Baltimore  is,  of  course,  not  known  ;  but 
it  is  undoubtedly  true  that  they  were  the  authors  of  all  these 
measures  in  the  Maryland  Colony,  and  that  they  had  pretty 
much  their  own  way  there.  This  appears  from  a  narrative 
preserved  in  the  Jesuit  college  at  Rome,  which  is  also  found 
among  the  "Historical  Tracts"  above  referred  to.  It  was 
prepared  by  the  Jesuit  fathers  appointed  by  the  superior- 
general  of  the  order  at  Rome,  to  superintend  the  first  emi- 
gration of  Roman  Catholic  colonists  who  left  England  in  the 
fall  of  1633.  They  went,  as  it  is  declared,  to  "  carry  the  light 
of  the  Gospel  and  of  truth  where  it  has  been  found  out  that 
hitherto  no  knowledge  of  the  true  God  has  shone  " — that  is, 
where  neither  the  pope  nor  popery  Jiad  been  heard  of.  His- 
tory has  amply  shown  the  kind  of  light  they  throw  upon  the 
pathway  of  nations  as  well  as  individuals,  and  the  events 
in  the  Maryland  Colony  show  that  they  acted  there,  as  ev- 
erywhere else,  under  instructions  from  Rome.  "  Bulls,  let- 
ters, etc.,  from  the  pope  and  Rome  " — that  is,  from  the  pope 
and  the  general  of  the  Jesuits — became  familiar  to  the  colo- 
nists. (")  By  means  of  these  the  Jesuits  became  omnipotent 
in  the  colony ;  and  in  the  tract  last  named  they  show  how 
successfully  they  exercised  their  power.  Then,  as  now,  the 
first  object  of  the  order  was  the  acquisition  of  wealth,  with 
the  right  to  govern  and  control  their  property  without  any 
reference  or  obedience  to  the  laws  of  the  country  in  which 
they  reside.  On  this  subject  Father  White,  one  of  these 
Jesuits,  reports  that  when  they  set  up  this  claim  in  Mary- 
land, they  were  met  by  those  who  insisted  that  the  laws 
of  England,  which  bound  the  colony,  forbade  it;  and  he 
speaks  of  them  as  those  "  who,  too  intent  upon  their  own 
aflairs,  have  not  feared  to  violate  the  immunities  of  the 
Church  by  using  their  endeavors  that  laws  of  this  kind  for- 
merly passed  in  England,  and  unjustly  observed  there,  may 

(^)  "Historical  Tracts,"  collected  and  printed  by  Peter  Force,  Washing- 
ton City,  1838,  p.  12. 


686  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

obtain  like  force  here,  to  wit :  that  it  shall  not  be  lawful  for 
any  person  or  community,  even  ecclesiastical,  in  any  wise, 
even  by  gift,  to  acquire  or  possess  any  land  unless  the  per- 
mission of  the  civil  magistrate  first  be  obtained.  Which 
thing,  when  our  people  declared  it  to  be  repugnant  to  the 
laws  of  the  Church,  two  priests  were  sent  from  England 
who  might  teach  the  contrary."  And  then,  in  order  to  show 
his  superior  what  admirable  success  he  had  in  resisting  this 
unjust  English  law,  and  how  all-powerful  the  order  had  al- 
ready become  in  America,  he  continues:  "But  the  reverse 
of  what  was  expected  happened ;  for  our  reasons  being 
heard,  and  the  thing  itself  being  more  clearly  understood, 
they  easily  fell  in  with  our  opinion^  and  the  laity  in  like 
manner  generally."(")  And  thus  the  Jesuits  won  their  first 
triumph  in  the  United  States.  The  two  priests  sent  over 
from  England  to  demonstrate  the*  necessity  of  obeying  the 
English  law  were  easily  converted ;  the  laity  were  unresist- 
ing;, the  law  was  trampled  under  their  feet;  and  they  were 
allowed  to  acquire,  hold,  and  govern  their  own  property  with 
impunity,  and  without  any  responsibility  to  the  civil  power. 
This  is  precisely  the  claim  now  set  up  by  the  American  hie- 
rarchy at  the  Second  National  Council  at  Baltimore,  who 
have  again  revived,  and  upon  the  same  soil,  the  old  Jesuit 
demand  of  nearly  tw^o  centuries  and  a  half  ago. 

If  the  simple  narration  of  the  foregoing  facts  were  not  suf- 
ficent  of  itself  to  prove  that  the  Jesuits  in  Maryland  were 
only  in  favor  of  religious  toleration  as  a  means  of  extirpa- 
ting Protestantism — which  is  acknowledged  to  have  been  the 
chief  object  of  their  organization — the  game  they  were  then 
playing  throughout  Europe  suflSciently  removes  all  doubt 
upon  the  subject.  Those  were  the  days  of  Popes  Gregory 
XV.  and  Urban  VIII.,  both  of  whom  strove  hard  to  estab- 
lish papal  omnipotence.  Gregory  XV.  canonized  Ignatius 
Loyola,  the  founder  of  the  Jesuits.  He  organized  missions 
to  every  country  in  the  world.  He  founded  the  society  of 
the  Propaganda.    He  formed  an  alliance  with  Roman  Catho- 

C^)  "A  Relation  of  the  Colony  of  the  Lord  Baron  of  Baltimore,"  by  Fa- 
ther Andrew  White,  "copied  from  the  Archives  of  the  Jesuit  College  at 
Rome  by  the  late  Rev.  William  M 'Sherry,  of  Georgetown  College,"  etc.  ; 
"Historical  Tracts,"  by  Peter  Force,  vol.  iv.,  last  tract,  p.  42. 


PAPAL  PERSECUTIONS.  687 

lie  sovereigns  for  the  extirpation  of  the  Lutherans  and  Cal- 
vinists.  He  sent  into  Bohemia  "cohorts  of  Dominicans,  Au- 
gustines,  Franciscans,  Carmelites,  and  Jesuits,"  under  Cardi- 
nal Caraflfa,  with  a  subsidy  of  two  hundred  thousand  crowns, 
who  attacked  and  murdered  Protestants  wherever  they  found 
them ;  who  "  burned  the  farm-houses,  murdered  the  farmers, 
violated  girls,  polluted  young  children,  sparing  those  only 
who  called  themselves  Catholics."  He  sent  Cardinal  Stein 
to  Moravia,  with  like  cruel  and  rapacious  soldiers,  who  drove 
fifteen  thousand  Moravian  brothers  from  their  homes.  His 
Jesuit  missionaries,  in  Bavaria  and  Saxony,  terrified  twenty 
thousand  people  with  the  axe  of  the  executioner,  until  they 
renounced  Protestantism.  He  prohibited  Protestant  wor- 
ship in  the  Palatinate,  and  forced  the  inhabitants  to  submit 
to  the  Church  of  Rome.  His  emissaries  penetrated  to  Up- 
per Baden,  to  Bamberg,  Fulda,  Eichsfeld,  Paderborn,  Hal- 
berstadt,  Magdeburg,  Altona,  and  threatened  Denmark  and 
Norway.  He  made  Duke  Maximilian  of  Bavaria  Elector 
of  the  Palatine,  as  a  reward  for  his  heartless  persecutions, 
which,  he  said,  filled  his  heart  "with  a  torrent  of  delight," 
because  it  gave  him  assurance  that  "soon  will  all  the  en- 
emies of  the  throne  of  the  apostle  be  reduced  to  dust." 
He  stimulated  Louis  XHL  of  France  to  make  war  upon  the 
Huguenots.  Everywhere  they  went,  his  legions  of  Jesu- 
its, Franciscans,  and  Capuchins  preached  the  extinction  of 
heresy.  With  the  heartlessness  of  a  fiend  he  wrote  thus 
to  Louis  XHL,  on  account  of  his  cruelties  to  the  Calvin- 
ists :  "  My  dear  son,  the  ornament  of  the  universe,  the  glory 
of  our  age,  march  on  steadily  in  your  holy  path ;  cause  the 
power  of  your  arm  to  be  felt  by  those  who  know  not  God; 
be  pitiless  toward  the  heretics;  and  merit  to  be  seated  one 
day  on  the  right  hand  of  Christ,  by  off*ering  to  him  as  a  hol- 
ocaust all  the  children  of  perdition  who  infest  your  king- 
dom." He  wrote  to  the  King  of  Spain  "  to  have  no  pity  on 
the  heretics;  to  order  his  governors  to  establish  the  Catholic 
religion  by  force  in  the  provinces  dependent  on  his  crown ; 
to  light  up  the  stake ;  and  to  leave  the  Calvinists  no  alter- 
native but  the  mass  or  death."  Dreading  the  power  of  the 
English  people,  he  changed  his  tactics  in  that  country,  and 
sought  to  win   James  L  by  flattery,  and  by  favoring  the 


688  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

marriage  of  his  son  Charles  to  the  daughter  of  the  King  of 
Spain.  He  conceived  the  idea  of  bringing  the  whole  world 
into  dependence  upon  Rome  by  the  instruments  he  was  then 
employing,  and  of  sending  these  desolating  missionaries  to 
the  Indies,  China,  Japan,  all  Asia,  and  Africa.  It  was  his 
fertile  and  inventive  brain  which  first  conceived  the  thought, 
just  before  the  Maryland  charter  was  granted  to  Lord  Balti- 
more, of  planting  Roman  Catholicism  in  North  America  by 
means  of  Jesuit  missionaries.  (")  And  to  notify  the  world 
how  it  would  be  governed  if  he  had  the  power,  this  infallible 
pope  issued  a  bull.  Contra  Hoereticos  in  locis  Italice^  whereby 
he  ordained  that  no  heretic,  under  ^ny  pretense  whatever, 
should  reside  in  Italy,  or  the  islands  adjacent. (") 

Urban  VIII.  was  a  fit  successor  to  Gregory  XV.  in  some 
respects,  while  in  others  he  was  not.  The  condition  into 
which  Europe  was  thrown  by  the  violent  measures  and  re- 
morseless persecutions  of  Gregory  was  one  of  convulsion 
and  uncertainty.  The  Protestants  were  everywhere  seek- 
ing places  of  refuge ;  and  the  princes  who  were  obedient  to 
Rome  were  emulous  of  each  other  in  the  adoption  of  meas- 
ures to  extirpate  them.  There  was  no  valley  in  the  Alps  or 
the  Pyrenees  so  remote  as  to  furnish  them  a  hiding-place. 
Spain  had  almost  worn  out  its  strength  during  the  forty  odd 
years  of  the  tyranny  of  Philip  II.  by  the  expulsion  of  more 
than  a  million  and  a  half  of  Jews  and  Moors,  and  the  murder 
of  untold  numbers  of  Protestants.  Ferdinand  II.  of  Ger- 
many had  swept  over  the  Protestant  settlements  of  Bohemia 
as  with  a  besom  of  destruction.  The  bloody  and  unrelent- 
ing Alva  had  desolated  the  Netherlands.  The  fires  of  the 
Thirty  Years'  War  were  blazing  all  over  Germany.  Lu- 
theranism  was  forbidden  in  Austria.  Hungary  was  sub- 
dued, impoverished,  and  paralyzed.  The  indomitable  but 
treacherous  Wallenstein  was  crushing  out  the  spirit  of  civil 
and  religious  liberty  with  his  mighty  army.  The  tramp  of 
soldiery  was  heard  everywhere.  James  I.  and  Charles  I. 
were  concerting  plans,  under  the  dictation  of  Buckingham 
and  Laud,  to  turn  over  England  to  the  papacy.     The  minor 

n  Cormenin,  vol.  ii.,  pj).  295,  297. 

(")  "  Religion  and  Policy,"  by  Clarendon,  vol.  ii.,  p.  530. 


RICHELIEU  AND  THE  PROTESTANTS.  689 

princes  everywhere  were  intimidated.  Nowhere,  in  all  Eu- 
rope, was  there  to  be  found  a  single  conspicuous  Roman 
Catholic,  except  the  great  Richelieu,  who  dared  to  defy  the 
thunders  of  Rome  ;  and  even  he  was  so  impressed  with  the 
teachings  of  the  queen-mother,  Mary  of  Medici,  that  he  was 
as  remorseless  as  his  royal  master,  Louis  XIII.,  could  desire, 
in  spreading  consternation  and  dismay  throughout  the  ranks 
of  the  Protestants.  He  used  their  swords  to  further  his  am- 
bition, but  punished  them  for  their  heresy.  He  added  them 
to  his  armies  in  order  to  stdke  terror  into  the  mind  of  Ur- 
ban VIII.,  and  then  struck  them  down  to  keep  within  the 
pale  of  the  Church.  He  would  brook  no  rival  to  the  king  in 
France,  and  with  his  strong  arm  snapped  every  cord  with 
which  the  infallible  pope  tried  to  bind  him.  Olivarez  of 
Spain  was  a  puppet  in  his  hands.  He  played  with  kings  as 
with  toys.  As  there  was  no  check  to  his  ambition,  so  there 
was  no  limit  to  his  power.  His  mighty  genius  displayed  it- 
self in  the  grandest  measures  of  state  policy ;  *and  finding 
that  the  greatness  and  glory  of  France  lay  through  fields  of 
blood,  his  cardinal  robes  were  not  sacred  enough  in  his  eyes 
to  cause  him  an  instant's  pause  in  the  task  of  achieving  them. 
Surrounded  by  men  and  events  like  these,  Urban  VIII. 
would  have  had  an  insignificant  existence  had  he  not  pos- 
sessed the  papacy.  This  position  required  him,  not  alone  to 
carry  on  the  persecutions  against  the  Protestants,  but  to  mix 
himself  up  with  the  contests  of  the  princes.  Spain  was  try- 
ing to  hold  Portugal  with  one  hand,  and  to  keep  France  in 
check  with  the  other.  Urban,  afraid  to  ofiend  either,  court- 
ed both.  He  dreaded  the  perfidy  of  Olivarez  as  much  as  he 
did  the  power  of  Richelieu.  Necessity,  therefore,  not  choice, 
kept  him  from  reaching  out  the  papal  arm  over  the  nations 
as  boldly  as  his  immediate  predecessor  had  done;  but,  nev- 
ertheless, he  quietly  left  at  work,  whenever  he  was  not  pre- 
vented, all  the  instruments  of  papal  vengeance  which  Grego- 
ry XV.  had  sent  out.  Italy  was  the  only  place  where  his 
infallibility  was  recognized,  and  there  it  was  conceded  only 
from  dread  of  his  power.  It  having  been  charged  against 
him  that  he  reached  the  pontificate  only  by  causing  some  of 
the  cardinals  who  had  opposed  him  to  be  poisoned, (")  and 

C")  Cormenin,  vol.  ii.,  p.  299. 
44 


690  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

by  intimidating  others,  the  Italians  were  kept  in  silence  by- 
fears  of  his  cruelty.  Hence,  in  this  limited  field  of  ecclesi- 
astical jurisdiction — where  his  mastery  was  undisputed,  he 
felt  authorized  to  show,  to  the  fullest  extent,  what  an  infal- 
lible pope  could  do  when  undisturbed  in  the  exercise  of  his 
power.  The  first  measure  by  which  he  distinguished  his 
pontificate  was  to  set  aside  a  bull  of  Sixtus  Y.  by  inaugura- 
ting a  shameless  system  of  nepotism,  in  making  cardinals  of 
his  brother  and  two  of  his  nephews,  and  in  rewarding  his 
own  family  with  gifts  of  money  ^nd  power.  He  caused  Gal- 
ileo to  be  thrown  into  prison  and  persecuted  because  he  vio- 
lated the  faith  of  the  Church  in  teaching  the  earth's  revolu- 
tion, according  to  the  theory  of  the  heretic  Copernicus.  He 
disgracefully  converted  the  papal  power  into  an  instrument 
for  extorting  money  from  an  orthodox  prince,  to  oblige  his 
nephew.  Cardinal  Francisco. 

The  Duke  of  Parma  was  largely  indebted  to  the  Monte, 
or  Bank,  of  Ilome,  as  security  for  which  the  revenues  of  the 
Duchy  of  Castro  were  pledged.  Cardinal  Francisco,  desir- 
ing to  obtain  possession  of  Castro,  prevailed  upon  the  pope 
to  summon  the  duke  before  him  and  command  the  payment 
of  the  debt  to  the  bank.  The  duke  was  notified  that  if  he 
did  not  appear  within  a  fixed  time,  he  would  be  excommu- 
nicated, and  the  revenues  of  Castro  be  sequestered  for  that 
purpose.  The  notice  was  disregarded,  and  the  duke,  know- 
ing the  character  of  Cardinal  Francisco  and  his  great  in- 
fluence over  the  pope,  commenced  the  erection  of  fortifica- 
tions to  defend  his  territory  in  the  event  of  forcible  invasion. 
This  the  pope  held  to  be  an  oifense  amounting  to  ''''crimen 
IcBse  majestatisj''  because  it  was  done  without  his  consent, 
and  he  proceeded  to  pronounce  a  solemn  judgment  against 
the  duke.  This  consisted  in  fulminating  a  formal  bull,  ex- 
communicating him,  forfeiting  all  his  dominions,  and  absolv- 
ing all  his  subjects  from  their  oaths  of  fidelity.  ('')  In  this 
act  Urban  VIII.  went  a  bow-shot  beyond  any  of  his  prede- 
cessors. With  them  the  practice  of  excommunicating  here- 
tics, releasing  their  subjects,  and  taking  away  their  domin- 
ions  was  familiar  enough  as  the  exercise  of  their  divine 

C^)  "Religion  and  Policy,"  by  Clarendon,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  648-550. 


DEATH  OF  URBAN  VIII.  691 

power;  but  Urban  was  the  first  pontiff  who  employed  this 
extraordinary  power  to  compel  an  orthodox  prince,  as  faith- 
ful to  the  Church  as  himself,  to  pay  a  debt  to  a  banking  cor- 
poration !  What  other  tlian  an  infallible  genius  could  have 
originated  the  idea  of  converting  an  ecclesiastical  bull  of 
excommunication  into  a  capias  ad  satisfacieyidumf  When 
forced,  at  last,  to  experience  the  mortification  of  defeat  in 
consummating  this  nefarious  scheme,  in  consequence  of  the 
combination  of  princes  to  protect  the  Duke  of  Parma,  he 
gnashed  his  teeth  in  anger,  like  a  madman,  and  died  a  mis- 
erable and  ignominious  death;  "blaspheming  the  name  of 
God,  and  confounding  in  the  same  curses  the  Doge  of  Yen- 
ice,  the  Dukes  of  Parma,  Modena,  and  Tuscany,  the  French 
and  Spaniards,  Protestants  and  Catholics."(^*) 

The  events  heretofore  related,  immediately  preceding  and 
connected  with  the  colonization  of  Maryland,  occurred  dur- 
ing the  pontificates  of  these  two  popes ;  and  there  is  noth- 
ing more  certain  than  that  neither  of  them  did  any  thing  up 
to  that  time  to  counteract  the  influence  of  the  Jesuits,  or  to 
check  their  career  of  conquest.  Suarez,  and  Sanchez,  and 
Emanuel  Sa,  and  Bellarmin,  and  other  fathers,  had  just  died, 
leaving  immense  volumes  of  defense  as  a  legacy  to  the  or- 
der. Neither  the  "  Augustinius  "  of  Jansen  nor  the  "  Provin- 
cial Letters  "  of  Pascal  had  yet  been  published.  The  heavy 
artillery  of  Port-Royal  had  not  yet  been  opened  upon  them. 
They  were  holding  "high  carnival"  among  the  nations; 
crowding  around  the  courts  of  kings  to  subjugate  them  by 
their  intrigues,  bending  popes  to  their  will  through  such 
generals  as  Acquaviva,  and  lighting  the  torch  wheresoever 
there  were  victims  to  be  found.  But  a  few  years  before,  the 
accursed  and  infernal  Inquisition  had  been  declared  "  holy  " 
and  "universal "  by  Pope  Sixtus  V.,  and  no  monarch  had  yet 
been  powerful  enough  to  succeed  in  mitigating  its  cruelties. 
John  lY.  of  Portugal  was  the  only  one  among  the  Roman 
Catholic  sovereigns  who,  at  that  time,  dared  to  incur  the 
pontifical  displeasure  by  denouncing  its  ferocities  and  seek- 
ing to  destroy  it.  Under  all  these  circumstances,  it  is  ab- 
surd— the  very  height  of  absurdity — to  suppose  that  these 

C^®)  Cormenin,  vol.  ii.,  p. ^317. 


692  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

Jesuit  fathers,  White,  and  Altham,  and  Brock,  and  others, 
who  accompanied  the  first  Roman  Catholic  colonists  to 
Maryland,  came  over  with  the  purpose  in  their  minds  to 
plant  religious  toleration  and  freedom  of  conscience  in  the 
New  World.  The  idea  is  preposterous;  and  he  who  is 
credulous  enough  to  believe  it,  is  also  ready  to  believe  that 
Gregory  VII.,  and  Adrian  IV.,  and  Alexander  III.,  and  Inno- 
cent III.,  and  Boniface  VIIL,  made  the  service  of  God  the 
sole  motive  of  their  lives,  and  undertook  no  efforts  to  seize 
upon  the  temporal  sceptres  of  kings. 

Whatsoever,  then,  was  done  in  the  Colony  of  Maryland  in 
favor  of  religious  toleration  was  done  only  in  obedience  to 
the  charter,  and  against  the  known  and  steady  policy  both 
of  the  Church  of  Rome  and  the  Jesuits.  Nobody  can  jus- 
tify the  intolerance  of  the  Episcopalians  of  Virginia  or  the 
Puritans  of  New  England  ;  and  while  we  may  now  congrat- 
ulate ourselves  that  counteracting  influences  were  plant- 
ed in  Maryland,  it  should  not  be  forgotten  that  those  who 
brought  them  accepted  toleration  from  compulsion,  and  em- 
ployed all  the  arts  and  cunning  of  Jesuitism  to  get  rid  of 
it.  Intolerance,  it  is  true,  accorded  with  the  spirit  of  that 
age,  and  some  allowance  —  but  no  apology  —  is  to  be  made 
for  it  on  that  account.  But  the  first  influences  that  set  in 
against  it  were  Protestant  exclusively,  not  Roman  Catholic. 
Nowhere  in  the  Roman  Catholic  world  could  religious  toler- 
ation obtain  a  foot-hold.  Although  great  men  and  laymen 
of  the  Church  gave  it  their  support,  Rome  would  not  permit 
it,  and  her  fiat  was  the  law  of  the  Church :  "  when  Rome 
has  spoken,"  said  Augustine,  "  that  is  the  end  of  the  matter." 

The  first  legislation  in  Maryland  in  favor  of  freedom  of 
conscience  was  in  1649,  fifteen  years  after  the  colony  had 
been  planted.  Earlier  assemblies  had  enacted  laws,  but  they 
were  not  approved  by  Lord  Baltimore,  and  were,  therefore, 
lost.  It  was  necessary  in  passing  all  these  that  the  colo- 
nists, while  preserving  the  legal  rights  of  the  Proprietary, 
should,  at  the  same  time,  be  careful  to  express  their  alle- 
giance to  the  English  monarch.  They  had  the  example  of^ 
Virginia  before  them  to  teach  them  how  necessary  it  was 
that  their  legislation  should  conform  to  their  charter,  in  or- 
der to  avoid  a  forfeiture.     This  conformity  to  the  charter 


TOLERATION  IN  MARYLAND.  693 

was  the  expression  of  their  allegiance.  Without  it  Lord 
Baltimore  could  not  legally  have  approved  of  their  legisla- 
tion, and  the  displeasure  of  the  king  would  have  been  in- 
curred. In  any  aspect  of  the  question,  then,  the  legislation 
of  1649  was  a  necessary  duty  imposed  by  their  fundamental 
law,  and  was  almost  in  the  language  of  the  charter.  It  was 
an  act  of  legal  obedience,  nothing  more.  If,  apart  from  this, 
it  had  the  hearty  assent  of  the  Roman  Catholic  laymen  of 
the  colony,  that  only  goes  to  show,  what  has  often  appeared 
elsewhere,  that  liberal-minded  men  of  that  Church  have  had 
courage  enough  to  defy  the  papacy,  in  their  advocacy  of  the 
inalienable  natural  rights  of  mankind.  To  these,  if  such 
were  the  fact,  all  possible  honor  is  due,  and  we  should  not 
be  slow  to  render  it.  And  even  now,  in  the  present  aspect 
of  affairs,  it  may  well  be  left  unchallenged  ;  for  neither  then 
nor  now  could  religious  toleration  obtain  the  sanction  and 
approval  of  the  papacy.  It  could  not  have  done  so  then,  be- 
cause Innocent  X.  was  pope,  and  he,  in  a  pontifical  bull,  ex 
cathedrd^  denounced  the  Treaty  of  Westphalia,  which  ended 
the  Thirty  Years'  War  by  restoring  peace  to  Germany,  and 
placed  every  religious  sect  on  an  equal  footing;  declar- 
ing it  to  be  "prejudicial  to  the  Catholic  religion,  to  divine 
worsnip,  to  the  safety  of  souls,  to  the  Apostolic  See,"  and 
"null,  vain,  iniquitous."('^^)  It  could  not  be  done  now,  be- 
cause Pius  IX.  has  announced,  in  his  Syllabus  of  1864  and 
elsewhere,  that  it  is  in  violation  of  God's  law  and  the  faith 
of  the  Church ;  that  Innocent  X.  and  all  other  intolerant 
popes  were  infallible ;  and  that  unqualified  and  unresisting 
obedience  is  due  both  to  the  doctrines  set  forth  by  them,  as 
well  as  to  those  which  have  been  set  forth  by  him.  If  the 
Roman  Catholic  laymen  of  Maryland,  in  1649,  were  so  far 
removed  from  the  immediate  influence  of  Innocent  X.  that 
they  dared  to  give  expression  to  their  honest  sentiments  in 
favor  of  toleration,  let  us  cherish  their  memory  with  affec- 
tion. But  the  immediate  question  which  concerns  us  now, 
and  which  is  practical  in  all  its  bearings,  is  this:  Are  the 
Roman  Catholic  laymen  of  the  United  States  at  this  time 


(")  "  History  of  Germany,"  by  Menzel,  vol.  ii.,  p.  395 ;  Cormenin,  vol.  ii., 
p.  321. 


694  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

sufficiently  removed  from  the  immediate  influence  of  Pius 
IX.  to  stand  firmly  by  the  honest  sentiments  of  their  own 
hearts,  and  defend  religious  toleration  at  the  hazard  of  in- 
curring excommunication  and  anathema?  If  they  are — if 
our  free  institutions  have  given  growth  and  strength  to 
their  natural  love  of  liberty,  and  they  cherish  the  hope  that 
they  may  be  preserved  as  an  asylum  where  Protestants  and 
Roman  Catholics  may  mingle  together  in  harmony,  and  en- 
joy whatsoever  forms  of  religious  belief  their  consciences 
shall  approve,  then  to  them  also  should  appropriate  honors 
be  given. 

And  this  is  the  great  question  to  which  all  our  inquiries 
tend.  How  it  is  to  be  decided,  and  what  shall  be  the  char- 
acter of  the  struggle  through  which  a  decision  shall  be 
reached,  is  known  only  to  the  Searcher  of  all  hearts.  The 
lead  of  the  pope  no  longer  wears  a  crown,  but  he  will  tol- 
erate no  subjects  whose  submissive  obedience  is  not  the 
same  as  if  he  did.  With  him  there  can  be  no  religion  with- 
out this  obedience ;  there  can  be  no  service  of  God  without 
serving  him.  If  this  is  to  be  the  religion  of  the  Roman  Cath- 
olic population  of  the  United  States,  then  the  obligation  of 
self-protection  will  require  measures  of  defense  against  it. 
What  these  shall  be  it  would  be  premature  to  discuss  until 
this  preliminary  question  shall  have  been  decided.  And  this 
can  not  be  put  off  much  longer.  It  is  crowding  upon  us  ev- 
ery day,  and  each  demand  from  Rome  increases  its  propor- 
tions. 


PAPAL  THEORY  OF  GOVERNMENT.  695 


CHAPTER  XXIII. 

The  Papal  Theory  of  Government.— The  Kind  of  Christian  State  it  requires. 
— The  Laws  of  Theodosius  and  Justinian. — The  Ordinances  in  France 
in  the  Times  of  her  Kings  most  in  Favor  at  Rome. — No  Other  Religion 
than  the  Roman  Catholic  allowed. — Heresy  made  a  Crime  against  the  State. 
— Modes  of  punishing  Heretics. — These  Laws  required  by  the  Church. — 
The  State  Heretical  without  them. — The  Protestant  System.— Separates 
the  Church  and  the  State. — Is  in  Obedience  to  the  Example  of  Christ  and 
the  Apostles. — The  Harmony  they  established  between  the  Spiritual  and 
Temporal  Powers  disturbed  by  the  Popes. — The  Consequences  of  disturb- 
ing this  Harmony. — Papal  Doctrines  in  the  United  States. — They  subject 
the  State  to  the  Government  of  the  Pope. — How  far  they  do  this. — In  All 
Temporals  which  concern  the  Faith  or  Morality, — The  Government  can 
not  stand  if  this  Doctrine  prevail. — The  Extent  to  which  it  is  carried. — 
It  is  based  upon  the  Bull  Unam  Sanctam  of  Boniface  VIII. — "Temporal 
Monarchy"  claimed  as  Necessary  for  the  World. — Harmonious  Condition 
of  the  First  Christians.  —  Churches  planted  in  Asia  before  those  in  Eu- 
rope.—  The  Work  well  done  by  the  Apostles. — Jerusalem  the  "Mother 
Church." — No  Necessity  for  Another  at  Rome. — The  Consequences  of 
Opposition  to  the  Apostolic  Plan. — They  lead  to  the  Reformation. — Effect 
of  the  Reformation.— Present  Efforts  of  the  Papacy  to  turn  the  World 
back. — The  Contest  in  the  United  States. — Conclusion. 

Protestant  no  less  than  Roman  Catholic  Christians  as- 
sign to  the  spiritual  and  temporal  powers  a  common  foun- 
dation in  the  order  and  appointment  of  God.  But  they  dif- 
fer with  them  essentially  in  the  application  of  this  general 
principle  to  the  civil  affairs  of  government. 

The  papal  theory  of  government,  taking  this  principle  as 
the  starting-point,  reaches  the  following  results:  that  the 
Church  and  the  State,  having  this  common  origin,  are  bound 
to  extend  mutual  aid  to  each  other;  that  the  Church,  be- 
longing to  the  spiritual  or  higher  order,  is  bound  to  see  that 
both  the  State  and  individuals  conform,  in  their  laws  and 
conduct,  to  the  law  of  God  ;  and  that,  as  the  two  powers  are 
thus  united  in  the  common  end  of  obtaining  order  and  hold- 
ing society  together,  they  should  also  be  so  united  in  their 
action  that  the  Church,  as  the  superior,  may  always  be  in  a 


696  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

condition  to  command  obedience  from  the  State,  as  the  in- 
ferior. As  it  regards  all  those  things  which  do  not  concern 
the  law  of  God  or  the  moral  well-being  of  society,  the  State 
is  left  to  deal  with  its  citizens,  collectively  and  individually, 
without  any  interference  from  the  Church.  This  is  its  sepa- 
rate and  independent  sphere  of  action.  But  whenever  ques- 
tions arise  which  involve  conformity  to  the  law  of  God  or 
of  morality,  then  the  Church  is  bound  to  interfere  and  pre- 
scribe the  rule  of  conduct  both  to  the  State  and  the  individ- 
ual. This  is  called  the  separate  and  independent  sphere  of 
the  Church.  Correlative  obligations  arise  out  of  these  rela- 
tions. The  chiefest  of  these  is,  that  when  the  Church  com- 
mands what  the  law  of  God  and  morality  require,  the  State 
is  bound  to  obey,  just  as  each  individual  is.  And  if  it  does 
not  obey,  it,  like  the  individual,  is  subject  to  whatsoever  pen- 
alty the  Church  may  prescribe  for  disobedience.  (^) 

In  looking  through  the  history  of  such  governments  as 
have  been  constructed  upon  the  papal  plan,  we  find  many 
illustrations  of  the  manner  in  which  these  principles  have 
been  practically  applied,  especially  in  reference  to  the  inflic- 
tion of  such  penalties  as  the  Church  has  from  time  to  time 
imposed  for  the  violation  of  its  laws.  The  codes  of  the  em- 
perors Theodosius  and  Justinian  contain  many  laws  relating 
to  religion,  enacted  only  in  obedience  to  the  command  of  the 
Church ;  merely,  says  Domat,  in  his  great  work  on  the  Civil 
Law,  "  to   enforce  the  observance   of  the  laws  which   the 


(^)  "Politics,  or  the  science  which  treats  of  the  State,  its  rights,  duties, 
and  relations,  presents  from  its  ethical  character  many  points  of  contact  with 
revealed  truth.  The  principles  on  which  it  is  based  flow  from  the  natural 
law.  They  can  never,  therefore,  be  in  real  contradiction  with  the  precepts 
of  the  divine  and  positive  law.  Hence  the  State,  if  it  only  remains  true  to 
its  fundamental  principles,  must  ever  be  in  the  completes!  harmony  with  the 
Church  and  revelation.  Now,  so  long  as  this  harmony  continues,  the  Church 
has  neither  call  nor  right  to  interfere  with  the  State,  for  earthly  politics  do 
not  fall  within  her  direct  jurisdiction.  The  moment,  however,  the  State  be- 
comes unfaithful  to  its  principles,  and  contravenes  the  divine  and  positive 
law,  that  moment  it  is  the  Church's  right  and  duty,  as  guardian  of  revealed 
truth,  to  interfere,  and  to  proclaim  to  the  State  the  truths  which  it  has  ig- 
nored, and  to  condemn  the  erroneous  maxims  which  it  has  adopted." — When 
does  the  Church  speak  Infallibly  ?  by  Thomas  Francis  Knox,  of  the  Lon- 
don  Oratory,  London  ed.,  pp.  70,  71. 


LAWS  DICTATED  BY  THE  PAPACY.  697 

Church  herself,  and  the  spiritual  powers  to  whom  God  has 
committed  the  care  of  her,  have  established,  and  to  protect 
and  maintain  the  execution  of  those  laws."  Referring  fur- 
ther to  these  emperors,  thus  obedient  to  the  Church,  and  to 
those  kings  of  France  under  whose  reigns  ordinances  on  re- 
ligious subjects  were  passed  of  the  same  nature,  this  same 
author  says,  "  They  add  to  the  authority  of  the  laws  of  the 
Church  that  which  God  has  put  in  their  hands ;  enjoining, 
as  to  what  concerns  the  articles  of  faith,  their  subjects  to 
submit  themselves  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Church,  prohibit- 
ing all  persons  to  preach  or  to  teach  any  thing  contrary 
thereto,  and  enacting  punishments  against  heretics."Q 

These  are  not  called  laws  of  the  Church,  and,  strictly 
speaking,  they  are  not,  because  they  are  not  enacted  by  the 
spiritual,  but  by  the  temporal,  authority.  They  are  passed, 
however,  because  the  Church  obliges  the  State  to  enact  them 
as  a  necessary  protection  to  its  religion  and  what  it  calls  its 
"  free  exercise,"  and  holds  the  State  to  be  heretical  if  it  does 
not  do  so.  If  the  laws  are  passed  according  to  its  dictation, 
then  the  civil  power,  being  Christian,  must  be  obeyed ;  but 
if  they  are  not,  then  the  Church  releases  all  citizens  from 
the  obligation  of  obedience  to  it,  because  it  is  sinful  to  obey 
an  heretical  power.  And  this  is  called  rendering  "  unto  Cae- 
sar the  things  that  are  Caesar's,  and  to  God  the  things  that 
are  God's." 

In  France,  when  the  papal  power  was  sufficiently  predomi- 
nant to  exact  obedience  to  the  laws  of  the  Church,  it  caused 
the  temporal  power  to  be  so  employed  in  matters  relating 
to  the  Church,  that  sundry  laws  were  enacted  which  exhibit, 
in  a  strong  light,  the  real  spirit  of  the  papal  system  of  gov- 
ernment. Domat,  in  defining  the  polic}'-  which  prompted 
them,  says  it  requires  "  that  Catholic  princes  prohibit  with- 
in their  dominions  divisions  touching  matters  of  religion, 
schisms,  and  the  exercise  of  any  other  religion  except  the 
Catholic  alone,  and  exclude  all  heretics  from  it,  by  inflict- 
ing penalties  against  them  as  there  is  occasion."(^)  Again, 
speaking  of  the  obligation  resting  upon  the  civil  magistrate, 


O  "The  Civil  Law,"  etc.,  by  Domat,  London  ed.,  1737,  vol.  ii.,  p.  507. 
C)  Ibid.,  p.  515. 


698  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

he  says:  "It  is  likewise  his  duty  to  employ  his  authority  for 
enforcing  the  observance  of  the  laws  of  the  Church,  in  so  far 
as  they  contain  rules  about  manners  which  may  regard  the 
public  order."(*)  And  the  same  obligation  is  said  to  rest 
upon  princes.  (^)  And  then,  as  a  consequence  necessarily  re- 
sulting from  this  superiority  of  the  Church  and  inferiority 
of  the  State,  he  says  "  that  no  person  has  a  right  to  revenge 
the  encroachments  which  the  ministers  of  the  Church  may 
make  on  the  rights  of  temporal  princes  ;"f )  thus  exempting 
the  pope,  in  administering  the  affairs  of  the  papacy,  from  re- 
sponsibility to  any  earthly  power,  and  extending  or  limiting 
his  jurisdiction  only  as  his  own  discretion  shall  dictate. 

One  of  these  ordinances  was  in  these  words :  "  Heresy  is 
a  crime  of  high  treason  against  the  Divine  Majesty,  whereof 
one  is  guilty  when  he  abandons  the  true  Catholic  faith,  and 
obstinately  maintains  an  error  which  the  Universal  Church 
hath  condemned.''^) 

And  another:  "They  who  will  not  hearken  to  the  Church, 
which  is  the  pillar  of  truth,  and  against  which  the  gates  of 
hell  shall  not  prevail,  ought  to  be  treated  as  heathens  and 
publicans."(^) 

The  following  modes  whereby  the  progress  of  heresy  was 
required  to  be  hindered  are  particularly  pointed  out :  take 
from  heretics  the  places  where  they  assemble  for  worship ; 
forbid  them  from  assembling  in  private  houses;  remove  their 
ministers  into  distant  parts;  "take  care  that  the  children 
of  heretics  be  educated  in  the  schools  of  the  orthodox;"  pre- 
vent heretics  from  holding  any  public  office  or  any  honora- 
ble employment,  or  from  exercising  reputable  professions, 
such  as  advocates,  physicians,  or  professors  in  colleges;  sub- 
ject them  to  corporal  punishment;  and, finally,  put  them  to 
death. (")  And  those  guilty  of  blasphemy  were  thus  dealt 
with :  they  were  fined  for  the  first  offense,  but,  in  the  event 
of  frequent  relapses, "  their  lips  are  pierced  with  a  hot  iron, 
their  tongue  is  cut  out,  and  they  are  condemned  to  the  pil- 
lory, to  banishment,  or  to  the  galleys,"  and,  at  last,  "  even  to 
death  itself."^'') 

(♦)  "The  Civil  Law," etc.,  by  Domat,  London  ed.,  1737,  vol.  ii.,  p.  516. 
O  Ibid.,  p.  517.  O  Ibid.,  p.  519.  {')  Ibid.,  p.  624. 

O  Ibid.,  p.  625.  («)  Ibid.,  pp.  625,  626.  Q')  Ibid.,  p.  627. 


A  CHRISTIAN  STATE  AFTER  THE  PAPAL  PLAN.     699 

These  ordinances  were  enacted  in  France  during  the  reigns 
of  those  kings  who  are  held  in  the  highest  estimation  by  the 
papacy,  as  the  most  beloved  and  honored  sons  of  the  Church, 
on  account  of  their  obedience  to  its  commands  and  their 
devotion  to  the  cause  of  religion.  By  means  of  them,  and 
others  of  like  nature,  they  caused  themselves  to  be  esteem- 
ed in  Rome  as  foremost  among  Christian  princes,  and  placed 
France  in  the  very  front  rank  of  Christian  states.  The  na- 
tion presented  to  the  world  a  model  form  of  government,  ac- 
cording to  the  papal  plan.  If  it  had  not  passed  these  laws 
in  obedience  to  the  dictation  of  the  Church,  it  would  have 
been  heretical,  and  not  Christian.  And  if  those  who  exer- 
cised the  temporal  power  had  not  caused  them  to  be  vigor- 
ously executed,  they  would  have  subjected  themselves  to 
the  anathemas  of  the  Church.  Thus  we  see  the  nature  and 
character  of  the  civil  institutions  for  which  we  are  now  asked 
to  exchange  our  own — in  other  words,  what  the  papacy  and 
its  defenders  mean  by  a  Christian  state! 

Why  are  Roman  Catholic  states  required  to  exhibit  their 
obedience  to  the  Church  by  enacting  such  laws  as  these  ? 
Manifestly,  because  they  concern  the  faith,  and  the  princi- 
ples involved  in  them  are  considered  necessary  to  be  be- 
lieved as  a  part  of  it.  They  are  laws  for  the  advancement 
and  protection  of  religion — rules  prescribed  by  the  Church 
to  the  State,  whereby  the  State  and  its  citizens  are  t6  be 
held  in  the  line  of  religious  duty,  and  thus  maintain  their 
Christian  character.  The  obligation  of  obedience  on  the 
part  of  both  is  the  same — the  measure  of  punishment  differ- 
ing from  necessity.  As  the  above-named  ordinances  can  not 
reach  the  State,  which  has  no  corporeal  body  to  be  punished 
or  soul  to  be  damned,  it  becomes  equally  heretical  with  the 
individual  by  its  act  of  disobedience,  and  thereby  forfeits  its 
right  to  exist  as  a  state — because  the  Church  considers  it  as 
much  a  violation  of  the  laws  of  God  for  a  state  to  commit 
heresy,  as  it  does  for  an  individual  to  commit  it.  And  those 
who  administer  its  affairs  forfeit  their  right  to  do  so,  because 
they  are  guilty  of  treason  against  God.  Consequently,  the 
Church — that  is,  the  pope — releases  the  citizens  of  the  hereti- 
cal State  from  any  further  obligation  to  obey  its  laws  or  its 
heretical  governors,  and  supplies  it  with  such  other  laws  and 


700  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

governors  as  shall  put  it  back  again  upon  the  Christian 
path ! 

The  Protestant  system  of x  government  draws  a  marked 
and  palpable  line  of  distinction  between  religion  and  civil 
policy — between  the  Church  and  the  State ;  and  while  rec- 
ognizing also  their  common  foundation  in  the  order  and  ap- 
pointment of  God,  it  so  separates  them  in  their  respective 
spheres  of  action  that  neither  shall  trench  upon  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  other,  and  therefore  leaves  no  question  of  sub- 
mission by  the  temporal  to  the  spiritual  authority,  and,  con- 
sequently, none  about  punishment  of  the  State  for  disobedi- 
ence to  the  laws  of  the  Church.  It  leaves  religion  to  its  in- 
fluence upon  the  hearts  of  individuals,  so  as  to  form  good 
dispositions  within  each  one,  in  order  that  society  may  be 
influenced  by  the  love  of  justice  and  right,  and  the  govern- 
ment be  enabled,  under  these  influences,  to  secure  the  public 
tranquillity.  In  this  it  follows,  with  strict  exactitude,  the 
example  of  Christ  himself.  Before  his  appearing,  the  Jewish 
commonwealth  consisted  in  a  union  of  Church  and  State — 
the  subjection  of  the  temporal  to  the  spiritual  power.  But 
he  came  upon  earth  to  undo  this  old  order  of  things,  and  to 
establish  his  spiritual  kingdom.  In  order  to  do  this  so  that 
it  should  stand  out  prominently  before  the  world  as  some- 
thing distinct  from  what  had  ever  existed  before,  he  express- 
ly abstained  from  exercising  his  own  spiritual  power  over 
temporal  things,  or  over  any  of  the  affairs  of  existing  gov- 
ernments. So  far  from  doing  so,  whatever  he  did  was  di- 
rectly opposite  to  the  grandeur  and  power  of  a  temporal 
kingdom — of  such  a  kingdom  as  the  papacy  afterward  built 
up  at  Rome.  He  did  not  take  a  single  mark  of  temporal 
power.  He  exercised  no  single  function  of  it.  On  the  con- 
trary, when  appealed  to  by  one  brother  to  cause  another  to 
divide  the  inheritance  with  him,  he  refused  to  act  the  part 
of  judge.C^) 

To  show  that  it  was  necessary  to  his  spiritual  kingdom 
that  it  should  exist  apart  from  the  temporal  power — be  sep- 
arated entirely  from  it — he  left  the  temporal  princes  to  ex- 
ercise the  latter,  and  he  himself  paid   strict  obedience  to 

(")  Luke  xii.,  13,  14. 


CHRIST'S  OBEDIENCE  TO  CIVIL  LAW.  701 

them.  As  God,  he  caused  his  earthly  parents,  Joseph  and 
Mary,  to  go  up  to  Bethlehem,  to  be  taxed,  under  a  decree 
from  Caesar  Augustus  ;('*)  thereby  making  even  his  birth  to 
depend  on  his  obedience  to  a  law  of  a  heathen  prince.  In 
order  to  demonstrate  the  absolute  necessity  of  disuniting 
his  own  spiritual  kingdom  from  the  temporal  kingdoms  of 
princes,  he  taught  his  disciples  to  render  unto  the  tem- 
poral power  what  belonged  to  it ;  and  exhibited  the  manner 
of  doing  this  by  requiring  Peter  to  pay  tribute -money  at 
Capernaum,  when  none  was  due,  and  by  working  a  miracle 
for  that  purpose. (")  He  pointed  out  the  distinction  between 
his  spiritual  kingdom  and  the  temporal  power  of  princes,  by 
declaring,  "  My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world. "('^)  When  he 
was  delivered  up  to  be  crucified,  he  told  Pilate  that  he  could 
have  had  no  temporal  power  at  all  against  him,  except  it 
were  given  him  from  God,('^)  and  yet  did  not  employ  his 
own  supernatural  power  to  release  himself  from  his  enemies 
and  persecutors.  When  he  made  his  disciples  the  ministers 
of  his  spiritual  kingdom,  prescribed  to  them  rules  for  the 
government  of  their  conduct,  and  defined  the  boundaries  of 
the  power  he  intrusted  to  them,  he  did  not  give  them  a  sin- 
gle iota  of  power  over  temporal  aflTairs.  And  they,  obedient 
to  his  commands,  neither  claimed  nor  exercised  any  temporal 
power.  On  the  contrary,  they  obeyed  it,  as  he  had  done. 
And  although  the  temporal  princes  opposed  them  in  their 
ministry,  and  persecuted  them  under  temporal  laws,  they 
practiced  obedience  themselves  and  taught  it  to  their  fol- 
lowers, performing  all  the  duties  of  their  sacred  ministry, 
without  attempting,  in  any  single  instance,  to  break  down 
the  authority  of  the  temporal  power  or  to  subject  it  to  the 
spiritual  power  which  Christ  had  given  them.  "Taken  from 
among  men,"  and  "  ordained  for  men  in  things  pertaining  to 
God,"('°)  they  exercised  their  ministry  in  spiritual  things, 
without  intruding  themselves  upon  temporals,  inculcating 
at  the  same  time,  on  the  part  of  those  who  exercised  the 
temporal  power,  the  necessity  of  their  not  encroaching  upon 
spirituals.     And  thus,  while  they  recognized  both  powers  as 

(")  Luke  ii.,  1-5.         C^)  Matthew  xvii.,  24-27.        (")  John  xviii.,  36. 
C)  John  xix.,  11.        O  Hebrews  v.,  1. 


702  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

established  by  the  hand  of  God,  the  harmony  between  them 
consisted  in  the  performance  by  each  of  its  own  distinctive 
functions;  the  spiritual  purifying  the  heart  of  man  and  fit- 
ting him  for  all  the  duties  of  life,  and  the  temporal  conform- 
ing to  his  wants  and  necessities  arising  out  of  the  discharge 
of  those  duties. 

There  would  have  been  no  disturbance  of  this  harmony 
but  for  the  establishment  and  introduction  of  the  canon  law 
of  Rome.  Nor  would  even  this  have  done  it,  had  its  opera- 
tions been  confined  to  the  temporal  things  within  the  terri- 
tories known  as  "  the  States  of  the  Church"  of  Rome.  When, 
however,  the  provisions  of  this  law  were  carried  beyond 
these  territories  by  those  kings  who  held  their  crowns  from 
the  popes  and  their  governments  to  be  "fiefs  of  the  See  of 
Rome,"  collisions  between  the  two  powers  immediately  be- 
gan, and  did  not  end  until  ignorance  and  superstition  be- 
came almost  universal,  as  in  the  Middle  Ages,  and  the  tem- 
poral power  was  subjugated  by  the  spiritual.  The  same 
spirit  of  ambition  which  incited  these  popes  to  stretch  out 
their  arms  beyond  the  limits  of  their  Italian  possessions  in- 
fluenced them  to  the  eflTort  of  makinor  the  world  a  o^rand 
"Holy  Empire,"  with  themselves  its  rulers ;  and  when  they 
so  far  succeeded  as  to  cause  governments  to  be  framed  ac- 
cording to  the  papal  (or  what  they  called  the  Christian)  plan, 
mankind  became  subject  to  such  laws  as  we  have  seen  em- 
bodied in  the  ordinances  of  France,  when,  under  their  dicta- 
tion, that  Government  was  held  up  as  a  model  for  all  Chris- 
tian states ! 

Thus  we  see  the  radical  and  irreconcilable  difference  be- 
tween these  two  opposing  systems  of  government  —  the 
Protestant  and  the  papal.  And  it  is  impossible  to  escape 
the  conviction  that  the  substitution  of  the  former  for  the  lat- 
ter was  not  only  accordant  to  the  principles  recognized  by 
Christ  and  the  apostles,  but  absolutely  necessary  to  elevate 
and  improve  the  condition  of  mankind.  So  long  as  but  one 
form  of  religious  faith  was  tolerated,  and  all  else  was  regard- 
ed as  treason  against  God,  popes  and  princes  kept  mankind 
in  degrading  servitude,  by  the  infliction  of  the  most  terrible 
punishments.  Charity,  love,  and  the  mild  Christian  virtues, 
so  beautifully  exemplified  in  the  lives  of  Christ  and  the  apos- 


NO  LAYMAN  CAN  DEFINE  THE  FAITH.  703 

ties,  were  dethroned  by  hatred  and  revenge.  And  now, 
when  the  established,  fully  developed,  and  tolerant  Protest- 
antism of  the  United  States  has  carried  us  forward  to  the 
very  front  rank  of  the  nations,  we  have  those  among  us  who 
impudently  tell  us  that  every  step  of  our  prosperity  is  mark- 
ed by  treason  to  God,  and  that  they  are  the  chosen  and  se- 
lected vicegerents  of  the  Almighty  to  bring  us  back  to  the 
obligations  of  Christian  duty.  If  we  rebuke  them  ever  so 
mildly  for  their  insolence,  and  protest  against  their  destroy- 
ing the  work  of  our  fathers,  they  call  it  persecution,  because 
it  denies  to  them  the  liberty  of  striking  down  whatsoever 
the  pope  shall  command  to  be  destroyed.  If  we  insist  that 
they  shall  obey  our  Constitution  in  consideration  of  the  pro- 
tection they  receive  from  it,  they  tell  us  that  the  pope  is,  to 
them,  a  domestic  prince,  who  steps  in  between  them  and  it, 
bids  defiance  to  its  injunctions,  and  sets  aside  its  obligations 
whensoever  he  shall  deem  it  necessary  to  the  ends  and  aims 
of  the  papacy  to  do  so.  Even  if  there  were  no  principle  in 
the  Constitution  the  pope  might  desire  to  set  aside,  the  as- 
sertion of  the  right  and  power  to  do  so  should  command  our 
most  serious  attention.  But  when  he  fixes  his  pontifical 
curse  upon  the  very  fundamentals  of  our  Government,  and 
marshals  his  forces  to  assail  them,  it  is  as  much  our  duty  to 
resist  him  as  it  is  to  defend  our  lives. 

We  have  sufiiciently  indicated,  in  the  previous  chapters, 
wherein  he  has  done  so,  and  there  is  no  authority  in  the 
Church — whether  hierarchical  or  lay  —  entitled  to  gainsay 
what  he  has  declared.  There  is  no  single  man  in  the  United 
States,  no  matter  how  high  his  position  in  the  Church,  who 
has  authority  to  define  the  principles  or  declare  the  pur- 
poses of  the  papacy.  He  may  avow  what  would  seem  best 
to  him,  under  any  given  state  of  circumstances ;  but  in  do- 
ing so  he  speaks  for  himself  alone.  Whenever  he  speaks  for 
the  Church,  his  individual  opinions  are  of  no  value,  since  by 
the  dogma  of  the  pope's  infailibility  he  is  required  to  sur- 
render his  will  and  conscience  into  the  keeping  of  the  pope. 
The  pope  is  the  sole  exponent  and  interpreter  of  the  law  of 
the  Church,  which  he  may  abrogate  or  change  at  his  pleas- 
ure; and  however  much  he  may  tolerate,  for  a  time  and 
from  prudential  motives,  the  expression  of  individual  opin- 


704  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

ions  contrary  to  those  set  forth  in  the  Encyclical  and  Sylla- 
bus of  1864,  and  other  pontifical  briefs,  from  these  alone  can 
we  derive  a  just  and  accurate  understanding  of  the  faith 
and  doctrines  of  the  Church.  Let  us  take  a  single  illustra- 
tion out  of  the  many  which  are  exhibited  almost  every  day. 
A  late  number  of  The  Catholic  World  contains  an  eloquent 
article  on  "Religion  and  State  in  our  Republic,"  evidently 
from  the  pen  of  the  learned  and  distinguished  editor.  Re- 
ferring to  the  time  when,  by  possibility,  the  Roman  Cath- 
olic population  of  the  United  States  may  "become  an  over- 
whelming majority,"  and  endeavoring  to  remove  any  cause 
of  alarm  among  Protestants  on  that  account,  he  says,  "  They 
will  never  seek  to  tyrannize  over  their  fellow-citizens,  to  es- 
tablish their  religion  by  force,  or  to  compel  any  one  to  do 
those  things  which  are  required  only  by  the  Catholic  con- 
science."(^^)  Such  assertions  as  these  are  not  worth  the  val- 
ue of  a  rush-light  in  showing  what  the  pope  would  require 
to  be  done  in  the  United  States  if  he  had  an  obedient  ma- 
jority to  control  the  Government.  Whatever  the  author  of 
them  may  think  for  himself,  and  however  hearty  the  re- 
sponse they  may  meet  in  the  minds  of  intelligent  laymen, 
they  utterly  fail  of  any  other  effect  than  to  delude  those  lay- 
men and  such  Protestants  as  accept  them.  Measured  by 
the  papal  standard,  they  are  heretical.  By  the  constitu- 
tions of  popes,  the  decrees  of  councils,  the  repeated  action 
of  Roman  Catholic  governments,  and  by  the  avowals  of  the 
present  pope,  the  law  of  the  Church  is  held  to  enjoin  upon 
its  authorities  the  duty  to  extirpate  heresy,  to  destroy  ev- 
ery other  form  of  religion  than  the  Roman  Catholic,  to  com- 
pel obedience  to  it,  in  faith  and  morals,  and  to  do  all  this  by 
force,  by  uniting  the  Church  and  the  State  together,  and  re- 
quiring the  State,  as  in  the  case  of  France  under  her  obedi- 
ent kings,  to  pass  such  statutes  as  shall  bring  these  results 
about.  And  it  can  only  mislead  the  incautious  and  unwary 
to  pretend  that  different  results  would  be  sought  after  in 
this  country,  if  the  policy  of  the  Government  were  directed 
by  the  pope.  The  form  of  Government  which  the  papacy 
dictated  when  it  had  the  power  to  enforce  obedience,  and 

(")  The  Catholic  World,  February,  1875,  vol.  xx.,  pp.  624,  625. 


THE  CHURCH  ABOVE  THE  STATE.  705 

none  other,  would,  if  it  had  that  power  in  the  United  States, 
spring  up  upon  the  ruins  of  our  Protestant  institutions. 
What  was  a  Christian  government  in  France,  acceptable  to 
popes,  would  furnish  the  model  for  the  construction  of  the 
new  government  here. 

And  this  writer,  perhaps  unwittingly,  concedes  as  much 
in  the  very  next  sentence,  when  he  says  that  "  the  difficul- 
ty lies  chiefly  in  respect  to  those  laws  which  forbid  certain 
things  as  contrary  to  the  divine  law."('®)  Certainly,  the  dif- 
ficulty lies  just  there;  because  out  of  it  grows  the  whole 
controversy  about  the  spiritual  and  the  temporal  powers. 
At  that  point  exists  the  radical  disagreement  between  the 
Protestant  and  the  papal  systems  of  government ;  between 
the  United  States  Government  and  that  of  France  when  it 
was  a  Christian  state  after  the  papal  model.  This  difference 
has  been  pointed  out  sufficiently  to  show  wherein  the  princi- 
ples of  our  Government  are  "  contrary  to  the  divine  law,"  as 
the  pope  interprets  it ;  and  he  must  be  exceedingly  ignorant 
who  does  not  see  that  if  these  were  destroyed  the  Govern- 
ment would  fall.  All  the  talk  about  the  necessity  of  giving 
to  the  law  an  ethical  standard  is  a  mere  pretext  for  keeping 
governments  as  well  as  individuals  within  the  circle  of  mor- 
al duty  which  the  pope  may  choose,  from  time  to  time,  to 
mark  out.  When  he  shall  prescribe  that  duty  in  any  thing, 
whether  it  concerns  civil  policy  or  the  intercourse  of  indi- 
viduals with  each  other,  whatsoever  is  done  to  the  contrary, 
by  the  Government  or  the  individual,  becomes  heretical,  and 
therefore  sinful.  In  such  a  case,  to  which  command — that 
of  the  Government  or  the  pope  —  does  the  doctrine  of  the 
pope's  infallibility  require  the  papist  to  render  obedience? 
This  writer  in  The  Catholic  World  answers  just  as  all  other 
ultramontanes  do.  Setting  aside,  with  entire  frankness,  all 
mere  "private  versions  or  modifications  of  Catholicity"  as 
counting  for  nothing,  and  going  directly  to  the  pope  as  the 
fountain-head  of  all  authority  in  the  Church,  he  says:  "For 
ourselves,  we  are  purely  and  simply  Catholic,  and  profess  an 
unreserved  allegiance  to  the  Church  which  takes  precedence 
of,  and  gives  the  rule  to,  our  allegiance  to  the  State.     If  al- 

C^)  The  Catholic  World,  February,  18<75,  vol.  xx.,  p.  625. 
45 


706  THE  PAPACY  AND  THP:  CIVIL  POWER. 

legiance  to  the  Clmrch  demanded  of  us  opposition  to  po- 
litical principles  adopted  by  our  civil  government,  or  dis- 
obedience to  any  laws  which  were  impious  and  immoral, 
we  should  not  hesitate  to  obey  the  Church  and*  God.  We 
should  either  keep  silence  and  avoid  all  discussion  of  the 
subject,  or  else  speak  out  frankly  in  condemnation  of  our 
laws  and  institutions,  if  we  believed  them  to  be  anti-Chris- 
tian, or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  anti-Catholic,  in  their  princi- 
ples."('') 

The  reader  need  not  be  again  reminded  of  the  many  im- 
portant principles  of  our  Government,  already  pointed  out, 
whereby  our  civil  institutions  have  become,  in  the  view  of 
the  papacy,  "anti- Christian  "  and  "anti- Catholic."  The 
avowal  here  is  distinct  and  emphatic,  that  to  none  of  these 
does  the  papist  owe  allegiance.  If  he  acquiesces  in  them  for 
the  time  being,  it  is  only  that  strength  enough  may  be  ac- 
quired, by  prudential  and  cautious  movements,  to  aim  effect- 
ive blows  at  them  when  the  open  battle  shall  begin. 

Dr.  Brownson  again  brings  his  powerful  pen  to  the  sup- 
port of  this  theory,  and  expresses  himself  with  his  accus- 
tomed boldness  and  indifference  to  consequences.  J3inding 
us  all  to  an  acceptance  of  the  law  of  God,  as  the  infallible 
pope  shall  announce  it,  he  says:  "Under  this  supreme  law 
the  State  holds,  and  this  law  is  the  ground  and  limit  of  this 
authority,  or  of  its  rights  and  its  obligations.  This  law  is, 
therefore,  the  ground  and  limit  of  civil  allegiance.  The  civil 
power  holds  all  its  authority  from  this  supreme  law,  and, 
consequently,  it  has  no  authority  to  do  or  command  any 
thing  that  it  forbids,  or  that  is  contrary  to  it.  Hence  it  fol- 
lows that,  if  the  civil  power  commands  any  thing  contrary 
to  the  law  of  God,  its  commands  do  not  bind  the  subject  or 
citizen,  and  are  not  only  not  obligatory,  but  are  to  be  treat- 
ed as  null  and  void  from  the  beginning,  simply  because  the 
civil  power  has  no  right  to  issue  them,  and  the  law  of  God 
forbids  them.  Here  is  the  limit  of  civil  obedience,  or  my 
allegiance  to  the  civil  powers.''^^") 

(")   The  Catholic  World,  February,  1875,  vol.  xx.,  p.  621. 

O  Brownson's  Quarterly  Review  ,•"  apnd  New  York  Tablet,  January  23d, 
1875,  p.  546.  Tlie  Ronian  Catholic  Bishop  of  Savannah,  Georgia,  has  thought 
fit  to  throw  his  official  influence  against  Mr.  Gladstone's  late  pamphlet.     His 


DEFENSE  OF  THE  SYLLABUS.  707 

There  is  abundant  evidence  to  show,  besides  what  has 
been  embodied  in  the  preceding  chapters,  that  these  are  the 
doctrines  of  religious  faith  set  forth  by  the  recognized  au- 
thorities of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  both  in  the  United 
States  and  in  Europe.  A  single  additional  reference,  how- 
ever, must  now  suffice,  leaving  the  inquiring  reader  to  search 
out  others,  if  he  desires  them,  for  himself. 

A  work,  considered  exhaustive,  has  recently  appeared  in 
reply  to  "Janus;"  the  main  object  of  which  is  to  support 
and  justify  the  claim  of  the  present  pope  of  power  over  the 
government  of  civil  society.  He  quotes  from  a  letter  of 
Pius  IX.  to  show  that  the  Church  "requires  of  those  clothed 
with  political  power  that  they  should  conform  to  those  laws 
[of  morality],  and,  indeed,  such  as  she  proclaims  them.  Were 
she  to  abandon  this  postulate,  she  would  then  renounce  her 
very  mission. "C**)  He  justifies  the  doctrines  set  forth  by  the 
Syllabus  of  1864,  in  a  whole  chapter;  and  thus  denounces 
that  principle  of  our  Government  which  treats  all  churches 
with  an  equal  degree  of  respect :  "To  prescribe  an  equal  re- 
spect for  another  religious  community  [not,  observe,  for  the 
persons  of  its  members]  is  to  require  that  the  doctrines  of 
the  true  Church  should  be  placed  on  the  same  level  with  the 
opinions  of  other  religious  bodies."(")  He  says,  "The  pope 
can  do  nothing  against  the  divine  law."(")  He  insists  upon 
a  union  of  Church  and  State.(^*)  He  admits  that  the  pow- 
ers of  the  pope  have  heretofoi-e  been  enlarged  by  "  forger- 


letter  to  J.  G.  Bennett,  Esq.,  which  appeared  in  the  New  Yorlc  Herald  of 
December  20th,  1874,  is,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  a  curious  production.  Start- 
ing out  with  the  wonderfully  profound  principle  of  constitutional  law,  that 
"our  own  Federal  constitution "  declares  "unconstitutional  any  law  infiin- 
ging  on  the  consciences  of  the  people!!"  he  lays  down  the  papal  rule  to  be 
that,  as  "in  questions  concerning  conscience "  the  Church  is  always  present 
"to  tell  her  children  how  far  CjBsar  [the  State]  may  go  without  usurping  to 
himself  the  things  that  are  God's,"  therefore  the  Roman  Catholic  citizen  of 
the  United  States  owes  no  allegiance  to  any  principle  of  the  Government 
which  is  condemned  by  the  Church  or  the  pope !  If,  according  to  him,  the 
courts  were  to  pass  upon  a  law  involving  a  question  of  conscience,  the  pope 
would  furnish  the  only  proper  rule  of  decision! — New  York  Tablet,  Decem- 
ber 26th,  1874,  p.  485. 

(^')  "Anti- Janus,"  bv  Hergenrother,  p.  37. 

C)  Ibid.,  pp.  3i),  40.  O  l^id.,  p.  42.  CO  Ibid.,  p.  44. 


708  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

ies,"  and  yet  asserts  them  to  exist  to  the  same  extent  as 
those  forgeries  were  designed  to  stretch  them.(")  But  these 
are  comparatively  immaterial  by  the  side  of  his  justification 
of  the  bull  Unam  Sanctam  of  Boniface  VIII.,  the  doctrines 
of  which  have  been  already  shown  to  be  the  necessary  con- 
sequence of  papal  supremacy. 

The  distinctive  principles  proclaimed  by  this  bull,  and 
now  a  part  of  the  canon  law  of  the  Church,  he  sets  down  as 
follows:  first,  "it  is  necessary  to  salvation  that  every  man 
should  submit  to  the  Roman  pontiff;"  second,  "this  is  a  nec- 
essary consequence  of  the  dogma  of  the  papal  supremacy ;" 
third,  "it  condemns  the  assertion  by  the  State  of  any  power 
over  'church  property;'"  fourth,  "the  temporal  power  of 
Christian  princes  does  not  exempt  them  from  obedience  to 
the  head  of  the  Church  ;"  fifth,  "  the  material  sword  is  drawn 
for  the  Church,  the  spiritual  by  the  Church ;"  sixth,  "  the 
material  sword  must  co-operate  with  the  spiritual  and  assist 
it;"  seventh,  "the  secular  power  should  be  guided  by  the 
spiritual  as  the  higher ;"  eighth,  "  the  spiritual  has  the  pre- 
eminence over  the  material;"  ninth,  "the  temporal  power  is 
subordinated  to  the  ecclesiastical,  as  to  the  higher;"  tenth, 
"  the  temporal  power,  if  it  is  not  good,  is  judged  by  the  spir- 
itual;" eleventh,  "  to  the  ecclesiastical  authority"  (that  is,  to 
the  pope  and  his  hierarchy)  "the  words  of  the  prophet  Jere- 
miah apply,  'Lo!  I  have  set  thee  this  day  over  the  nations 
and  over  kingdoms  to  root  up,  and  to  pull  down,  and  to 
waste,  and  to  destroy,  and  to  build,  and  to  plant;'"  twelfth, 
when  "the  temporal  power  goes  astray,  it  is  judged  by  the 
spiritual ;"  thirteenth,  "  for  obtaining  eternal  happiness,  each 
one  is  required  to  submit  to  the  pope ;"  fourteenth,  "  the  su- 
premacy of  the  pope,  even  in  temporal  things  ;"  and,  fifteenth, 
the  popes  "recognize  human  authorities  in  their  proper  place, 
till  they  lift  up  their  will  against  God."('') 

This  book  has  upon  it  the  imprint  of  "The  Catholic  Pub- 
lishing Society,"  of  New  York,  and  is  extensively  circulated 
in  the  United  States,  for  the  enlightenment  and  instruction 
of  the  faithful.    Its  general  character  is  recommended  by  an 

O  "Anti- Janus, "by  Heigenrother,  ch.  iv.,  p.  144. 
C«)  Ibid.,  pp.  203-209. 


TEMPORAL  MONARCHY  SOUGHT  AFTER.      709 

"Introduction,"  wherein  it  is  said  that  "the  spiritual  royal- 
ty of  Christ's  vicar  will  ultimately  tend  to  consolidate  anew 
temporal  monarchy,  and  all  its  concomitant  institutions."(") 
And  the  preference  entertained  by  papists  for  a  monarchical 
over  a  popular  or  democratic  form  of  government  is  thus 
unequivocally  avowed, "The  Church,  it  is  truly  said,  needs 
not  kings  and  emperors ;  but  civil  society  in  great  states 
needs  them ;  and  this  is  especially  true  under  the  Christian 
dispensation,  which,  by  the  abolition  of  slavery,  has  indefi- 
nitely multiplied  popular  suftrages,  and  therefore  aggravated 
the  difficulties  of  popular  government."f^^) 

We  have  here  the  deliberate  sentiments  and  purposes  of 
the  papacy,  that  is,  of  the  only  legitimate  authority  of  the 
Church.  No  individual  opinions  weigh  a  feather's  weight 
in  the  scale  against  them,  although  uttered  by  one  or  a  thou- 
sand prelates  or  laymen.  Every  man  who  has  any  connec- 
tion whatever  with  the  Church  must  accept  them  without 
change  or  modification  as  a  necessary  part  of  the  faith.  If 
he  shall  accept  them,  and  is  intelligent  enough  to  understand 
them,  he  must  be  regarded  as  prepared  to  take  all  the  con- 
sequences which  must  necessarily  follow  if  they  are  pressed, 
as  now  seems  inevitable,  to  their  legitimate  results.  But  if, 
like  the  "  Old  Catholics "  of  Europe,  the  Roman  Catholic 
population  of  the  United  States  shall  sternly  and  manfully 
rebuke  these  politico-religious  teachings  of  the  papacy,  they 
will  yet  retain  the  power  to  save  their  honored  and  vener- 
able Church  from  open  antagonism  with  the  Government 
which  shields  them  so  effectually  from  harm,  and  carry  her 
back  to  those  smooth  and  pleasant  paths  of  peace  and  quiet 
and  Christian  concord,  where  she  once  stood  so  proudly,  and 
where  they,  side  by  side  with  other  Christians,  may  dispense 
the  cheerful  and  benignant  influences  of  pure,  tolerant,  and 
apostolic  Christianity. 

How  beautifully  and  harmoniously  were  unity  and  diver- 
sity blended  in  the  churches  of  the  early  Christians — diver- 
sity in  discipline  and  economy — unity  centring  in  Christ  as 

(")  "Anti- Janus, "by  Hergenrother,  Introduction,  p,  xl. 

C^^)  Ibid.,  p.  47,  note  e.  Reference  is  not  here  made  to  the  abolition  of 
slavery  in  the  United  States,  but  to  the  elevation  of  the  masses  of  the  people 
in  Europe. 


710  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

the  rock  upon  which  it  was  built.  Then,  the  bishops  of  Je- 
rusalem, ofAiitioch,  of  Alexandria,  of  Corinth,  of  Rome,  and 
elsewhere,  presided  over  the  clergy  and  people  of  their  re- 
spective churches  and  provinces,  with  the  internal  policy  and 
economy  of  each  so  conducted  as  should  best  promote  the 
advancement  of  Christianity,  leaving  its  external  policy  un- 
der the  superintendence  of  the  whole  Church,  not  as  it  con- 
cerned discipline  and  government,  but  only  the  prime  and 
essential  part  of  religion,  the  preservation  of  the  Christian 
faith,  f^)  Neither  Christ  nor  his  apostles  made  provision  for 
any  form  of  church  imperialism.  He  did  all  things  perfect- 
ly. He  established  this  simple  plan  of  a  perfect  Church, 
leaving  the  apostles  to  rear  the  superstructure.  They,  with 
inspired  wisdom,  built  the  churches  at  Jerusalem  and  An- 
tioch,  and  other  cities  of  Asia,  before  a  Christian  was  ever 
known  to  be  at  Rome,  and  their  work  was  also  well  and  per- 
fectly done,  so  well  and  perfectly  that  it  was  scarcely  need- 
ed to  be  repeated  at  Rome  in  order  to  establish  the  true 
Church  of  Christ. 

There  was  every  thing  to  recommend  this  plan  of  the 
Master  and  the  apostles.  The  city  of  Jerusalem,  in  the 
midst  of  the  fallen  columns  of  "the  temple  of  God,"  and 
near  Calvary  and  Gethsemane  and  Bethlehem,  and  where 
Christ  had  first  disputed  with  the  learned  doctors  of  the 
Jewish  law,  and  whose  streets  hadjbeen  trodden  by  his  feet; 
this  "  Holy  City  "  was  a  far  more  fitting  place  for  planting 
the  first  Christian  Church  than  the  old  pagan  and  imperial 
city  of  the  Caesars,  where  God's  providence  had  been  defied 
for  centuries ;  where  the  name  of  Christ  was  cast  out  with 
derision  and  reproach ;  where  Christianity  was  held  to  be  a 
pernicious  and  dangerous  superstition  ;{^°)  where  the  demon 
of  persecution  first  held  his  bloody  orgies;  and  where  vice 
and  corruption  were  consuming  all  its  pagan  glories,  and 
leaving  it,  wrapped  in  clouds  of  life-consuming  miasma,  to 
become  the  place  where  the  curse  of  God  would  surely  rest, 
as  it  had  once  rested  upon  the  old  Babylon  of  the  Euphrates. 

C)  "Antiquities  of  the  Christian  Church,"  by  Bingham,  vol.  i.,  bk.  ii., 
ch.  v.,  p.  33. 

C)  Tacitus,  bk.  xv.,  §  xliv.  '■'■  Exitiabilis  super stitio'''  are  the  words  of 
Tacitus. 


JERUSALEM  THE  "MOTHER  CHURCH."  711 

As  the  first  churches  of  Asia  were  established,  under  the 
express  commission  of  Christ  before  the  Church  of  Rome,  it 
was  manifestly  against  the  divine  plan  for  the  latter  Church 
to  set  up  the  false  claim  that  she  was  the  "  mother  and  mis- 
tress" of  all  the  churches.  Besides  the  presumption  and 
vanity  of  the  assumption,  it  was  untrue  in  point  of  fact — for 
the  Church  at  Jerusalem  is  conceded  on  all  hands  to  have 
been  the  "mother  Church."  On  this  account  the  apostles 
assembled  there  to  settle  the  differences  which  had  arisen 
among  the  Christians  at  Antioch.(^')  The  Roman  Church 
was,  therefore,  the  daughter  of  the  older  Asiatic  churches — 
not  the  mother.  They  preceded  her  in  the  order  of  time  so 
far  that  Christianity  was  planted  by  means  of  them,  before 
she  had  a  beginning — or  before  it  had  reached  any  part  of 
Europe.  These  Asiatic  churches  possessed,  undoubtedly, 
all  the  external  authority  which  Christ  designed  should  be 
conferred  upon  his  Church ;  for,  being  presided  over  by  the 
apostles  and  specially  cared  for  by  them,  it  is  an  impeach- 
ment of  them  to  say  that,  in  this  or  in  any  other  respect, 
they  failed  in  obeying  the  divine  injunction  to  establish  the 
Church  rightfully.  While  the  system  they  organized  con- 
tinued, every  thing  worked  well  and  harmoniously.  If  there 
were  differences,  they  were  adjusted  by  conference,  as  at 
Jerusalem ;  and  nothing  occurred  to  plant  discord  among 
them  until  the  Church  at  Rome  endeavored  to  bring  them 

(^')  Acts  XV.  Roman  Catholics  claim  that  at  this  "first  council"  of  the 
apostles  the  primacy  of  Peter  over  the  other  apostles  was  recognized  —  in 
other  words,  that  he  was  then  regarded  as  "the  prince  of  the  apostles." 
This  is  not  warranted  by  the  recorded  facts.  Peter,  on  account,  probably, 
of  his  advanced  age  and  great  wisdom,  was  tlie  first  whose  speech  is  record- 
ed ;  but  it  must  be  observed  that  he  uttered  no  opinion  or  decision  to  bind 
the  others.  On  the  contrary,  he  merely  opened  the  discussion,  and  was  fol- 
lowed by  Barnabas  and  Paul.  And  after  them,  James,  who  was  Bishop  of 
Jerusalem,  spoke,  manifestly  with  the  authority  of  a  superior  position.  He 
desired  all  present  to  "hearken"  unto  what  he  said.  And  when  he  had  set 
forth  his  views,  he  said,  "Wherefore  my  seMtence  is,"  etc.  (ver.  19).  This 
shows  that  if  there  was  any  precedence,  it  belonged  to  James,  who  must  have 
presided.  In  the  Douay  Bible  this  verse  reads  :  "Wherefore  I  judge  "  etc., 
following  the  Latin  Vulgate,  ego  judico.  But  the  woxiS.  judico  does  not  mean 
a  mere  individual  opinion.  It  means  a  judgment,  sentence,  or  decision,  an- 
nounced by  authority.  Hence,  the  conclusion  that  James  possessed  official 
superiority  in  this  council  can  not  be  escaped. 


712  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

all  to  her  feet.  At  every  step  she  took  in  that  direction, 
she  struck  fatal  blows  at  this  original  system  of  church  or- 
ganization, and  never  rested  from  her  work  of  demolition  un- 
til the  columns  of  all  the  ancient  churches  had  fallen  to  the 
ground.  To  add  to  the  efficacy  of  her  measures,  she  snatched 
from  the  State  the  imperialism  of  temporal  power,  which  she 
employed  as  the  means  of  achieving  her  universal  dominion  ; 
and  thus,  by  uniting  Church  and  State,  she  has  afflicted  both 
herself  and  the  world  with  incalculable  calamities.  As  usur- 
pation and  imposture  have  their  reward,  as  well  as  virtue, 
these  have  been  visited  upon  her  in  terrible  abundance,  since 
she  sought  to  place  the  triple  crown  upon  the  brows  of  her 
bishops,  and  to  gild  her  papal  palaces  with  gold.  Ever  since 
the  time  of  Constantine  and  the  Nicene  Council,  she  has 
been  dealing  in  various  modes  of  compulsion,  with  multi- 
tudes of  her  rebellious  and  heretical  children — born  within 
her  fold  and  nurtured  upon  her  bosom.  The  most  formida- 
ble resistance  she  has  encountered  has  been  invited  by  the 
vacillations  of  her  faith,  or  has  been  produced  by  the  tyranny 
and  persecutions  of  the  papacy.  The  hardest  blows  under 
which  she  has  reeled  and  staggered — and  under  which  she 
is  now  reeling  and  staggering — have  been  struck  by  those 
who  have  been  compelled  to  strike  them,  in  order  to  assert 
and  vindicate  their  manhood  by  breaking  the  fetters  with 
which  she  had  manacled  their  limbs. 

Before  the  Reformation,  the  Roman  Church  had  some  good 
popes,  many  bad  ones,  and  some  who  w^ere  almost  monsters 
of  impiety  and  vice.  The  seventy  years  of  papal  residence 
in  France  had  created  a  rivalry  in  crime  and  prostitution 
between  the  two  pontifical  cities,  Rome  and  Avignon ;  and 
whenever  the  one  excelled  the  other,  it  was  only  because  of 
the  larger  number  of  cardinals  and  priests,  and  of  the  court- 
esans who  followed  them.  Of  course,  reformers  grew  up  in 
formidable  numbers  —  for  there  were  many  good  men  in  the 
Church,  belonging  to  every  class  —  but  anti-reformers  exist- 
ed in  greater  force,  composed  of  those  who  held  the  chief 
authority  in  the  Church.  Of  the  first,  there  were  those  who 
believed,  in  all  Christian  sincerity,  that  the  Church  could  be 
reformed  within  herself,  and  thus  her  life  and  purity  be  pre- 
served.    Of  the  latter,  there  were  those  who  either  supposed 


THE  KEFORMATION  A  NECESSITY.  713 

that  corruption  had  done  its  work  so  thoroughly  that  the 
disease  was  beyond  the  reach  of  remedy,  or  preferred  the 
wealth  and  power  which  her  vast  revenues  produced,  and 
the  ambition  it  gratified,  to  the  preservation  of  her  purity. 
And  when  the  great  Council  of  Trent  placed  the  Church  in 
a  condition  to  become  an  engine  of  mischievous  power  and 
bad  ambition  in  the  hands  of  the  Jesuits,  it  made  Protest- 
antism an  absolute  necessity  for  the  world  —  because,  with- 
out it,  the  terrible  pressure  under  which  both  Church  and 
State  were  rapidly  sinking  into  a  common  grave  could  nev- 
er have  been  removed.  Protestantism,  therefore,  finds  both 
its  truth  and  its  philosophy  in  the  history  of  those  times. 
God  was  its  author.  He  did  not  design  it  to  exterminate, 
but  to  preserve ;  to  support  the  cause  of  truth,  and  to  resist 
error.  There  was  yet  good  enough  in  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  to  have  secured  the  complete  triumph  of  divine 
truth,  but  for  the  perverseness  of  those  who  seemed  to  defy 
all  the  providences  of  God.  It  needed  only  the  winnowing 
process  of  reform  to  separate  the  good  from  the  bad  —  the 
genuine  grain  from  the  chaff~so  that  this  venerable  Church 
could  drift  back  again  into  the  calm  and  placid  current 
along  which  it  had  moved  so  beautifully  and  majestically 
in  the  days  of  her  primitive  purity. 

The  Reformation  was  not  the  result  of  impulse  and  pas- 
sion. Preceding  events  had  convinced  the  leading  nations 
of  the  necessity  of  taking  care  of  their  own  afiTairs,  which  it 
was  evident  they  could  not  do  without  resisting  the  ag- 
gressions of  the  papacy.  These  aggressions  had  become  so 
repeated  and  flagrant  that  some  of  the  governments  were 
entirely  subordinated  to  Rome.  With  the  imperialism  of 
princes  and  of  popes,  the  people  were  almost  crushed,  as  it 
were,  between  the  upper  and  the  nether  millstone.  The  ne- 
cessity .of  self-protection  and  self-existence  compelled  them 
to  seek  out  other  paths.  France  was  the  foremost  in  the 
movement  of  resistance (^^)  —  as  we  have  seen  how  soon  as  a 
Christian  nation,  according  to  the  papal  standard,  her  very 
life  would  have  been  crushed  out.  Germany  followed,  and 
then  England ;  and  Anally  the  United  States  rose  up  in  the 

^32^  a  jjistory  of  the  Popes,"  by  Ranke,  Jntroduction,  p.  xxvi. 


V14  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

New  World,  clothed  in  fresh  robes,  to  prove  how  benignant 
are  the  influences  >vhich  spring  from  popular  government 
and  Protestant  toleration.  These  influences  are  now  react- 
ing upon  the  older  nations,  and  one  by  one  they  are  mov- 
ing into  the  same  paths.  As  the  light  from  each  increases 
more  and  more — just  as  it  is  almost  ready  to  break  out  in 
meridian  brightness — the  papal  sword  is  unsheathed,  and 
they  are  commanded,  under  the  impious  pretense  that  God 
has  spoken  through  the  voice  of  an  infallible  pope,  to  turn 
back  into  darkness  and  slavery  and  imbecility  again. 

There  are  many  Roman  Catholic  laymen  in  the  United 
States,  who,  if  they  could  be  prevailed  upon  to  investigate 
these  matters  for  themselves,  and  to  abate  somewhat  their 
unbounded  confidence  in  their  ecclesiastical  superiors,  would 
see  —  as  many  of  their  brethren  in  Europe  have  done  —  that 
there  is  a  broad  and  manifest  distinction  between  their 
Church  as  it  existed  in  its  original  purity  in  the  days  of 
the  early  fathers,  and  that  enormous  papal  structure  into 
which  ambitious  and  designing  men  have  since  converted 
it,  with  power  to  domineer  over  princes  and  tyrannize  over 
peoples.  It  would  be  impossible  for  them  not  to  know  that, 
in  order  to  restore  and  maintain  the  pretensions  now  set  up 
in  behalf  of  the  papacy,  its  emissaries  would  be  guilty  of  in- 
fractions upon  the  rights  of  all  existing  governments,  espe- 
cially those  where  the  people  are  the  rulers ;  and  that  their 
own  continued  acquiescence  in  these  excessive  demands  of 
the  pope  and  his  priesthood  must,  in  the  end,  lead  them  into 
opposition  to  the  most  essential  principles  of  our  own  Gov- 
ernment, and  especially  to  that  which  makes  the  people  — 
themselves  included — the  true  and  legitimate  source  of  all 
civil  authority.  It  is  impossible  to  suppose  that  they  de- 
sire to  forget  the  sacrifices  many  of  them  have  made  for  the 
cause  of  popular  government,  or  that  they  can  becoi^ie  will- 
ingly insensible  to  the  precious  interests  they  have  wrapped 
up  in  its  continuance. 

Whatsoever  they  may  decide,  however  —  whether  they 
shall  resolve  to  become  the  guardians  of  their  own  civil 
rights,  or  leave  them  to  the  guardianship  of  an  army  of 
papal  hierarchs,  irresponsible  to  all  human  authority  and 
above  all  human  laws  —  the  American  people,  as  a  whole, 


AMERICAN  INSTITUTIONS  WILL  BE  PRESERVED.     ^15 

will  not  be  likely  to  remain  passive  and  unresisting  under 
these  continued  threateuings.  And  when  they  shall  be 
brought  to  realize — a  point  they  are  rapidly  reaching — that 
their  popular  Ibrm  of  government  is  actually  and  insolent- 
ly threatened ;  that  opposition  to  some  of  the  most  highly 
prized  features  of  their  civil  institutions  is  already  inaugu- 
rated, with  the  view  of  substituting  the  power  of  the  papa- 
cy for  their  own  constitutional  authority,  and  of  subordina- 
ting their  fundamental  laws  to  the  decrees  of  the  pope,  as  a 
foreign  king  and  despot — when  the  great  body  of  the  Amer- 
ican people  shall  become  fully  apprised  of  all  these  things, 
they  will  then  understand  what  remedy  to  apply,  and  how 
to  apply  it. 

They  will  not  find  this  remedy  in  the  violation  of  any  of 
the  cherished  principles  of  their  Government ;  by  the  aban- 
donment of  its  liberal  or  tolerant  spirit;  or  by  any  act  un- 
worthy a  Protestant  nation  pledged  to  maintain  free  thought, 
free  speech,  and  a  free  press.  They  will  not  find  it  in  any 
form  of  wrong  or  oppression;  either  by  withdrawing  from 
the  Roman  Catholic  religion  any  part  of  that  protection 
they  give  to  Protestantism,  or  by  excluding  any  who  think 
proper  to  profess  that  religion  from  the  shelter  of  their  civil 
institutions.  They  will  not  find  it  by  imitating  the  example 
set  them  by  those  Roman  Catholic  governments  that  have 
allowed  coercive  measures  to  be  employed  to  prohibit  every 
form  of  religion  but  that  of  Rome.  But  they  will  find  it 
by  maintaining  at  every  hazard,  and  in  the  face  of  all  con- 
sequences, their  right  to  enact  their  own  laws,  to  preserve 
their  own  constitutions,  and  to  regulate  their  own  affairs  ac- 
cording to  their  own  sovereign  will,  and  without  foreign  dic- 
tation ;  by  perpetuating  their  popular  form  of  government 
as  the  rightful  inheritance  of  their  children  ;  by  resisting  to 
the  last  the  "divine  right"  of  kings  or  popes  to  rule  over 
them ;  by  firm.ly  refusing  to  permit  the  canon  laws  of  the 
Roman  Catholic,  or  of  any  other  church,  to  take  the  place 
of  those  of  their  own  enacting;  and  by  teaching  the  Roman 
hierarchy  and  all  others  who  shall  willingly  become  subserv- 
ient to  the  schemes  of  the  pope,  that,  while  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  they  can  enjoy  unimpaired  all  the  rights  of 
citizenship  secured  to  themselves  ;  but  that,  in  order  to  this, 


716  THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  CIVIL  POWER. 

they  must  render  the  same  obedience  to  all  existing  laws 
which  others  are  required  to  render;  and  that  they  can  en- 
joy no  exclusive  privileges,  whether  civil  or  ecclesiastical, 
which  shall  put  it  in  their  power  to  violate  the  principles  of 
American  liberty— to  impose  unwilling  restraint  upon  a  sin- 
gle conscience— or  to  endanger  the  existence  of  a  single  fun- 
damental principle  upon  which  they  have  erected  their  civil 
and  relio-ious  freedom. 


APPENDIX. 


BISHOP'S  OATH. 


The  following  is  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  pope,  taken  by  every  arch- 
bishop and  bishop,  and  by  all  who  are  elevated  to  positions  of  official  dignity 
by  the  pope.  It  is  copied  by  Dr.  Dowling  from  the  treatise  on  the  papal  su- 
premacy by  Dr.  Barrow  (vol.  i.,  p.  553),  who  copied  it  from  "The  Roman 
Pontificate,  set  out  by  order  of  Pope  Clement  VIII.,"  Antwerp,  1626,  p.  59, 
etc. 

I,  N.,  elect  of  the  Church  of  N.,  from  henceforward  will  ho,  faithful  and 
obedient  to  St.  Peter  the  Apostle,  and  to  the  Holy  Roman  Church,  and  to  our 
Lord,  the  Lord  N. ,  Pope  iV.,  and  to  his  successors  canonically  entering.  I  will 
neither  advise,  consent,  nor  do  any  thing  that  they  may  lose  life  or  member,  or 
that  their  persons  may  be  seized,  or  hands  in  anywise  laid  upon  them,  or  any 
injuries  offered  to  them,  under  any  pretense  whatsoever.  The  counsel  with 
which  they  shall  intrust  me  by  themselves,  their  messengers,  or  letters,  I  will 
not  knowingly  reveal  to  any  to  their  prejudice.  I  will  help  them  to  defend 
and  keep  the  Roman  papacy,  and  the  royalties  of  St.  Peter,  saving  my 
order,  against  all  men.  The  legate  of  the  Apostolic  See,  going  and  coming, 
I  will  honorably  treat  and  help  in  his  necessities.  The  rights,  honors,  privi- 
leges, and  authority  of  the  Holy  Roman  Church,  of  our  Lord  the  Pope,  and 
his  aforesaid  successors,  I  will  endeavor  to  preserve,  defend,  increase,  and 
advance.  I  will  not  be  in  any  counsel,  action,  or  treaty  in  which  shall  be 
plotted  against  our  said  Lord,  and  the  said  Roman  Church,  any  thing  to  the 
hurt  or  prejudice  of  their  persons,  right,  honor,  state,  or  power ;  and  if  I  shall 
know  any  such  thing  to  be  treated  or  agitated  by  any  whatsoever,  I  will  hin- 
der it  to  my  utmost,  and,  as  soon  as  I  can,  will  signify  it  to  our  said  Lord,  or 
to  some  other,  by  whom  it  may  come  to  his  knowledge.  The  rules  of  the 
holy  Fathers,  the  apostolic  decrees,  ordinances,  or  disposals,  reservations,  pro- 
visions, and  mandates,  I  will  observe  with  all  my  might,  and  cause  to  be  ob- 
served by  others. 

Heretics,  schismatics,  and  rebels  to  our  said  Lord,  or  his  aforesaid  succes- 
sors, I  will  to  my  utmost  persecute  and  oppose.  [Hgereticos,  schismaticos,  et 
rebelles  eidem  Domino  nostro  vel  successoribus  preedictis  pro  posse  persequar 


718  APPENDIX. 

et  oppugnaho.']  I  will  come  to  a  council  when  I  am  called,  unless  I  be  hin- 
dered by  a  canonical  impediment.  I  will,  by  myself  in  person,  visit  the 
threshold  of  the  Apostles  every  three  years;  and  give  an  account  to  our  Lord 
and  his  foresaid  successors  of  all  my  pastox-al  office,  and  of  all  things  any- 
wise belonging  to  the  state  of  my  Church,  to  the  discipline  of  my  clei'gy  and 
people,  and  lastly  to  the  salvation  of  souls  committed  to  my  trust ;  and  will 
in  like  manner  humbly  receive  and  diligently  execute  the  apostolic  commands. 
And  if  I  be  detained  by  a  lawful  impediment,  I  will  perform  all  the  things 
aforesaid  by  a  certain  messenger  hereto  specially  empowered,  a  member  of 
my  chapter,  or  some  other  in  ecclesiastical  dignity,  or  else  having  a  parson- 
age ;  or  in  default  of  those,  by  a  priest  of  the  diocese ;  or  in  default  of  one 
of  the  clergy  of  the  diocese,  by  some  other  secular  or  regular  priest  of  ap- 
proved integrity  and  religion,  fully  instructed  in  all  things  above  mentioned. 
And  such  impediment  I  will  make  out  by  lawful  proofs  to  be  transmitted  by 
the  foresaid  messenger  to  the  cardinal  proponent  of  the  Holy  Roman  Church 
in  the  Congregation  of  the  Sacred  Council.  The  possessions  belonging  to  my 
table  I  will  neither  sell,  nor  give  away,  nor  mortgage,  nor  grant  anew  in  fee, 
nor  anywise  alienate,  not  even  with  the  consent  of  the  chapter  of  my  Church, 
without  consulting  the  Roman  Pontiff.  And  if  I  shall  make  any  alienation, 
I  will  thereby  incur  the  penalties  contained  in  a  certain  constitution  put  forth 
about  this  matter.  So  help  me  God  and  these  Holy  Gospels  of  God. — Dow- 
ling's  History  of  Romanism,  pp.  615,  G16  ;  Debate  between  Rev.  Alexander 
Campbell  and  Archbishop  Purcell,  pp.  280-317. 


B. 

The  pastoral  letter  of  the  Second  National  Council  of  Baltimore  con- 
tnined  thirteen  articles.  The  third  concerns  the  "Relations  of  the  Church 
to  the  State,"  and  is  as  follows  : 

The  enemies  of  the  Church  fail  not  to  represent  her  claims  as  incompati- 
ble with  the  independence  of  the  civil  power,  and  her  action  as  impeding  the 
exertions  of  the  State  to  promote  the  well-being  of  society.  So  fiir  from 
these  charges  being  founded  in  fact,  the  authority  and  influence  of  the 
Church  will  be  found  to  be  the  most  efficacious  support  of  the  temporal  au- 
thority by  which  society  is  governed.  The  Church,  indeed,  does  not  pro- 
claim the  absolute  and  entire  independence  of  the  civil  power,  because  it 
teaches  with  the  apostles  that  "  all  power  is  of  God ;"  that  the  temporal 
magistrate  is  His  minister ;  and  that  the  power  of  the  sword  he  wields  is  a 
delegated  exercise  of  authority  committed  to  him  from  on  high.  For  the 
children  of  the  Church,  obedience  to  the  civil  power  is  not  a  submission  to 
force  which  may  not  be  resisted,  nor  merely  the  compliance  with  a  condition 
for  peace  and  security ;  but  a  religions  duty  founded  on  obedience  to  God, 
by  whose  authority  the  civil  magistrate  exercises  his  power.  This  power, 
however,  as  subordinate  and  delegated,  7nust  always  be  exercised  agreeably  to 


APPENDIX.  719 

Gocts  law.  In  prescribing  any  thing  contrary  to  that  law,  the  civil  power 
transcends  its  authority,  and  has  no  claim  on  the  obedience  of  the  citizen. 
Never  can  it  be  lawful  to  disobey  God,  as  the  apostles  Peter  and  John  so 
explicitly  declared  before  the  tribunal  which  sat  in  judgment  on  them,  "If 
it  be  just  in  the  sight  of  God  to  hear  you  rather  than  God,  judge  ye."  This 
undeniable  principle  does  not,  however,  entail  the  same  consequences  in  the 
Catholic  system  as  in  those  of  the  sects.  In  these  the  individual  is  the  ulti- 
mate judge  of  what  the  law  of  God  commands  or  forbids,  and  is  consequent- 
ly liable  to  claim  the  sanction  of  the  higher  law,  for  what,  after  all,  may  be, 
and  often  is,  but  the  suggestions  of  an  undisciplined  mind  or  an  overheated 
imagination.  Nor  can  the  civil  government  be  expected  to  recognize  an  au- 
thority which  has  no  warrant  for  its  character  as  divine,  and  no  limits  in  its 
application,  without  exposing  the  State  to  disorder  and  anarchy.  The  Cath- 
olic has  a  guide  in  the  Church,  as  a  divine  institution,  which  enables  him  to 
discriminate  between  what  the  law  of  God  forbids  or  allows ;  and  this  au- 
thority the  State  is  bound  to  recognize  as  supreme  in  its  sphere,  of  moral  no 
less  than  dogmatic  teaching.  There  may,  indeed,  be  instances  in  which  in- 
dividual Catholics  will  make  a  misapplication  of  the  principle ;  or  in  which, 
while  the  principle  of  obedience  to  civil  authority  is  recognized  as  of  divine 
obligation,  the  seat  of  that  authority  may  be  a  matter  of  doubt,  by  reason 
of  the  clashing  opinions  that  prevail  in  regard  to  this  important  fact.  The 
Church  does  not  assume  to  decide  such  matters  in  the  temporal  order,  as  she 
is  not  the  judge  of  civil  controversies,  although  she  always,  when  invited  to 
do  so,  has  endeavored  to  remove  the  misconceptions  from  which  disputes  so 
often  arise,  and  to  consult  for  every  interest  while  maintaining  the  peace  of 
society  and  the  rights  of  justice. 

While  cheerfully  recognizing  the  fact,  that  hitherto  the  General  and  State 
Governments  of  our  country,  except  in  some  brief  intervals  of  excitement 
and  delusion,  have  not  interfered  with  our  ecclesiastical  organization  or  civil 
rights,  we  still  have  to  lament  that  in  many  of  the  States  we  are  not  as  yet 
permitted  legally  to  make  those  arrangements  for  the  security  of  church 
property  which  are  in  accordance  with  the  canons  and  discipline  of  the  Cath- 
olic Church.  In  some  of  the  States  we  gratefully  acknowledge  that  all  is 
granted  in  this  regard  that  we  could  reasonably  ask  for.  The  right  of  the 
Church  to  possess  property,  whether  churches,  residences  for  the  clergy,  cem- 
eteries or  school-houses,  asylums,  etc.,  can  not  be  denied  without  depriving 
her  of  a  necessary  means  of  promoting  the  end  for  which  she  has  been  es- 
tablished. We  are  aware  of  the  alleged  grounds  for  this  refusal  to  recognize 
the  Church  in  her  corporate  capacity,  unless  on  the  condition  that  in  the 
matter  of  the  tenure  of  ecclesiastical  property  she  conform  to  the  general 
laws  providing  for  this  object.  These  laws,  however,  are  for  the  most  part 
based  on  principles  which  she  can  not  accept  without  departing  from  her 
practice  from  the  beginning,  as  soon  as  she  was  permitted  to  enjoy  liberty  of 
worship.  They  are  the  expression  of  a  distrust  of  ecclesiastical  power,  as 
such ;  and  are  the  fruit  of  the  misrepresentations  which  have  been  made  of 
the  action  of  the  Church  in  past  ages.  As  well  might  the  civil  power  pre- 
scribe to  her  the  doctrines  she  is  to  teach,  and  tte  worship  with  which  she  is 


720  APPENDIX. 

to  honor  God,  as  to  impose  on  her  a  system  of  holding  her  temporalities 
which  is  alien  to  her  principles,  and  which  is  borrowed  from  those  who  have 
rejected  her  authority.  Instead  of  seeking  to  disprove  the  various  reasons 
alleged  for  this  denial  of  the  Church's  rights  in  some  of  the  States,  we  con- 
tent ourselves  with  the  formal  protest  we  hereby  enter  against  it ;  and  briefly 
remark,  that  even  in  the  supposition,  which  we  by  no  means  admit,  that  such 
denial  was  the  result  of  legitimate  motives,  the  denial  itself  is  incompatible 
with  the  full  measure  of  ecclesiastical  or  religious  liberty  which  we  are  sup- 
posed to  enjoy. 

Nor  is  this  an  unimportant  matter,  or  one  which  has  not  practical  results 
of  a  most  embarrassing  character.  Not  only  are  we  obliged  to  place  church 
property  in  conditions  of  extreme  hazard,  because  not  permitted  to  manage 
our  church  temporalities  on  Catholic  principles,  but  in  at  least  one  of  these 
United  States  (Missouri)  laws  have  been  passed  by  which  all  church  proper- 
ty, not  held  by  corporations,  is  subjected  to  taxation  ;  and  the  avowed  object 
of  this  discriminating  legislation  is  hostility  to  the  Catholic  Church.  In 
concluding  these  remarks,  we  merely  refer  to  the  attempt  made  in  that  State 
to  make  the  exercise  of  the  ecclesiastical  ministry  depend  on  a  condition  laid 
down  by  the  civil  power. 

The  bishops  of  the  council  sent  to  the  pope  the  following  dispatch,  through 
the  Atlantic  cable : 

Seven  archbishops  and  forty  bishops,  met  in  council,  unanimously  salute 
your  holiness,  wishing  you  long  life,  with  the  preservation  of  all  the  ancient 
and  sacred  rights  of  the  Holy  See. 

To  which  the  following  answer  was  received : 

Rome,  from  the  Propaganda,  October  24th,  1866. 
To  the  Most  Reverend  Martin  John  Spalding,  Archbishop  of  Baltimore : 
The  telegram  which  the  bishops  of  the  States  of  the  American  Union  as- 
seml'led  in  council  had  the  happy  thought  to  address  to  the  Holy  Father 
proved  to  he  of  great  comfort  and  consolation  to  his  holiness,  and  so  highly 
did  he  appreciate  its  spirit  that  he  ordered  it  to  be  immediately  published  in 
the  official  journals  at  Rome,  for  the  edification  of  his  Roman  people  and  the 
faithful  at  large.  His  holiness  looks  with  interest  for  the  acts  and  decrees 
of  the  Plenary  Council,  which  he  expects  to  receive  in  due  time,  and  from 
which  he  hopes  a  new  impulse  and  continued  increase  to  religion  in  the 
United  States  will  result.  He  has,  however,  directed  me  to  express  directly 
to  your  amplitude,  and  through  you  to  all  your  colleagues,  his  great  pleasure, 
and  to  request  you  to  thank  them  for  the  interest  they  have  tiiken,  and  still 
take,  m  defending  the  Holy  See  and  in  vindicating  its  contested  rights.  More- 
over, his  holiness  has  learned  with  satisfaction  that  the  papal  loan  is  suc- 
ceeding also,  through  the  co-operation  of  the  American  episcopate.  He 
thanks  them  particularly  for  this,  and  nourishes  the  hope  that  such  co-oper- 
ation will  not  cease,  and  that  thence  a  prosperous  result  may  be  obtained. 
In  the  mean  time,  I  pray  the  Lord  that  he  long  preserve  and  jjrosper  you. 
Alexander  Cardinal  Barnabo,  Secretary. 


APPENDIX.  .721. 

C. 
THE  ENCYCLICAL  LETTER  OF  POPE  PIUS  IX. 

To  Our  Venerable  Brothers  the  Patriarchs,  Primates,  Archbishops,  and 
Bishops  of  the  Universal  Church  having  Grace  and  Communion  of  the 
Apostolic  See. 

PIUS  PP.  IX. 

Health  and  Apostolic  Benediction. 

It  is  well  known  unto  all  men,  and  especially  to  You,  Venerable  Brothers, 
with  what  great  care  and  pastoral  vigilance  Our  Predecessors,  the  Roman 
Pontiffs,  have  discharged  the  Office  intrusted  by  Christ  Our  Lord  to  them  in 
the  person  of  the  Most  Blessed  Peter,  Prince  of  the  Apostles,  and  have  unre- 
mittingly discharged  the  duty  of  feeding  the  lambs  and  sheep,  and  have  dili- 
gently nourished  the  Lord's  entire  flock  with  the  words  of  faith,  imbued  it 
with  salutary  doctrine,  and  guarded  it  from  poisoned  pastures.  And  those 
Our  Predecessors,  who  were  the  assertors  and  cliampions  of  the  august  Cath- 
olic Religion,  truth,  and  justice,  being,  as  they  were,  chiefly  solicitous  for  the 
salvation  of  souls,  held  nothing  to  be  of  so  great  importance  as  the  duty  of 
exposing  and  condemning,  in  their  most  wise  Letters  and  Constitutions,  all 
heresies  and  errors  which  are  hostile  to  moral  honesty  and  to  the  eternal  sal- 
vation of  mankind,  and  which  have  frequently  stirred  up  terrible  commotions, 
and  have  damaged  both  the  Christian  and  civil  commonwealths  in  a  disas- 
trous manner. 

Wherefore  those  Our  Predecessors  have  with  apostolic  fortitude  continu- 
ally resisted  the  nefarious  attempts  of  unjust  men,  of  those  who,  like  raging 
waves  of  the  sea,  foaming  forth  their  own  confusion  and  promising  liberty 
whilst  they  are  the  slaves  of  corruption,  endeavored  by  their  fsvlse  opinions 
and  most  pernicious  writings  to  overthrow  the  foundations  of  the  Catholic  re- 
ligion and  of  civil  society,  to  abolish  all  virtue  and  justice,  to  deprave  the  souls 
and  minds  of  all  men,  and  especially  to  pervert  inexperienced  youth  from  up- 
rightness of  morals,  to  corrupt  them  miserably,  to  lead  them  into  snares  of  er- 
ror, and  finally  to  tear  them  from  the  bosom  of  the  Catholic  Church. 

And  now,  Venerable  Brothers,  as  is  also  very  well  known  to  you,  scarce- 
ly had  We  (by  the  secret  dispensation  of  Divine  Providence,  certainly  by  no 
merit  of  Our  own)  been  called  to  this  Chair  of  Peter  when  We,  to  the  ex- 
treme grief  of  Our  soul,  beheld  a  horrible  tempest  stirred  up  by  so  many  er- 
roneous opinions,  and  the  dreadful  and  never-enough-to-be-lamented  mis- 
chiefs which  redoimd  to  Christian  people  from  such  errors :  and  We  then,  in 
discharge  of  Our  Apostolic  Ministerial  Office,  imitating  the  example  of  Our  il- 
lustrious Predecessors,  raised  Our  voice,  and  in  several  published  Encyclical 
Letters,  and  in  Allocutions  delivered  in  Consistory,  and  in  other  Apostolical 
Letters,  We  condemned  the  prominent,  most  grievous  errors  of  the  age,  and 
We  stirred  up  Your  excellent  episcopal  vigilance,  and  ngain  and  again  did  We 
admonish  and  exhort  all  the  sons  of  the  Catholic  Church,  who  are  most  dear 
to  Us,  that  they  should  abhor  and  shun  all  the  said  errors  as  they  would  the 
contagion  of  a  fatal  pestilence.     Especially  in*  Our  first  Encyclical  Lettet-, 

46 


722  APPENDIX. 

written  to  you  on  the  9th  of  November,  anno  1846,  and  in  two  Allocutions 
one  of  which  was  delivered  by  Us  in  Consistory  on  the  9th  of  December 
anno  1854,  and  the  other  on  the  9th  of  June,  anno  1862,  We  condemned  the 
monstrous  and  portentous  opinions  which  prevail  especially  in  the  present  age, 
to  the  very  great  loss  of  souls,  and  even  to  the  detriment  of  civil  society  and 
which  are  in  the  highest  degree  hostile  rfot  only  to  the  Catholic  Church  and 
to  her  salutary  doctiine  and  venerable  laws,  but  also  to  the  everlasting  law  of 
nature  engraven  by  God  upon  the  hearts  of  all  men,  and  to  right  reason  •  and 
out  of  which  almost  all  other  errors  originate. 

Now,  although  hitherto  We  have  not  omitted  to  denounce  and  reprove 
the  chief  errors  of  this  kind,  yet  the  cause  of  the  Catholic  Church  and  the 
salvation  of  souls  committed  to  Us  by  God,  and  even  the  interests  of  human 
society  absolutely  demand,  that  once  again  We  should  stir  up  Your  pastoral 
solicitude  to  drive  away  other  erroneous  opinions  which  flow  from  those  er- 
rors  above  specified,  as  their  source. 

These  false  and  perverse  opinions  are  so  much  the  more  detestable  by 
how  much  they  have  chiefly  for  their  object  to  hinder  and  banish  that  saluta- 
ry  influence  which  the  Catholic  Church,  by  the  institution  and  command  of 
her  Divine  Author,  ought  freely  to  exercise,  even  to  the  consummation  of  the 
world,  not  only  over  individual  men,  but  nations,  peoples,  and  sovereigns— 
and  to  abolish  that  mutual  co-operation  and  agreement  of  counsels  between 
the  Priesthood  and  Governments  which  has  always  been  propitious  and  con- 
ducive to  the  welfare  both  of  Church  and  State  (Gregory  XVI.,  Encyclical, 
13th  August,  1832).  You  are  well  aware  that  at  this  time  there  are  not  a 
few  who  apply  to  civil  society  the  impious  and  absurd  principle  of  naturalism, 
as  they  term  it,  and  dare  to  teach  that  "the  welfare  of  the  State  and  politic- 
al and  social  progress  require  that  human  society  should  be  constituted  and 
governed  irrespective  of  religion,  which  is  to  be  treated  just  as  if  it  did  not 
exist,  or  as  if  no  real  difference  existed  between  true  and  false  religions." 

Contrary  to  the  teaching  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  of  the  Church,  and  of  the 
Holy  Fathers,  these  persons  do  not  hesitate  to  assert  that  "the  best  condi- 
tion of  human  society  is  that  wherein  no  duty  is  recognized  by  the  Govern- 
ment of  correcting  by  enacted  penalties  the  violators  of  the  Catholic  Religion, 
except  when  the  maintenance  of  the  public  peace  requires  it."  From  this 
totally  false  notion  of  social  government  they  fear  not  to  uphold  that  errone- 
ous opinion  most  pernicious  to  the  Catholic  Church,  and  to  the  salvation  of 
souls,  which  was  called  by  Our  Predecessor,  Gregory  XVI.  [lately  quoted],  the 
insanity  (Encycl.,  13th  August,  1832)  [deliramentum],  namely,  that  "liberty  \ 
of  conscience  and  of  worship  is  the  right  of  every  man  ;  and  that  this  right 
ought,  in  every  well -governed  State,  to  be  proclaimed  and  asserted  by  the 
law  ;  and  that  the  citizens  possess  the  right  of  being  unrestrained  in  the  ex- 
ercise of  every  kind  of  liberty,  by  any  law,  ecclesiastical  or  civil,  so  that  they 
are  authorized  to  publish  and  put  forward  openly  all  their  ideas  whatsoever, 
either  by  speaking,  in  print,  or  by  any  other  method."  But  whilst  these 
men  make  these  rash  assertions,  they  do  not  reflect  or  consider  that  they 
preach  the  liberty  of  perdition  (St.  Augustine,  epistle  105,  al.  166),  and  that 
"if  it  is  always  free  to  human  arguments  to  discuss,  men  will  nevei'  be  want- 


APPENDIX.  723 

ing  who  will  dare  to  resist  the  truth,  and  to  rely  upon  the  loquacity  of  hu- 
man wisdom,  when  we  know  from  the  command  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
how  faith  and  Christian  wisdom  ought  to  avoid  this  most  mischievous  van- 
ity "  (St.  Leo,  epistle  164,  al.  133,  sec.  2,  Boll.  ed.). 

And  since  religion  has  been  banished  from  civil  government — since  the 
teaching  and  authority  of  Divine  revelation  have  been  repudiated — the  idea 
inseparable  therefrom  of  justice  and  human  right  is  obscured  by  darkness,  and 
lost ;  and  in  place  of  true  justice  and  legitimate  right,  material  force  is  substi- 
tuted ;  whence  it  appears  why  some,  entirely  neglecting  and  slighting  the  most 
certain  principles  of  sound  reason,  dare  to  proclaim  "  that  the  mil  of  the  peo- 
ple, manifested  by  public  opinion  (as  they  call  it),  or  by  other  means,  consti- 
tutes a  supreme  law  independent  of  all  Divine  and  human  right ;  and  that, 
in  the  political  order,  accomplished  facts,  by  the  mere  fact  of  their  having 
been  accomplished,  have  the  force  of  right,"  But  who  does  not  plainly  see 
and  understand  that  human  society,  released  from  the  ties  of  religion  and 
true  justice,  can  have  no  other  purpose  than  to  compass  its  own  ends,  and  to 
amass  riches,  and  can  follow  no  other  law  in  its  actions  than  the  indomitable 
wickedness  of  a  heart  given  up  to  the  service  of  its  selfish  pleasures  and  in- 
terests ? 

For  this  reason  also  these  same  men  persecute  with  such  bitter  hatred  the 
Religious  Orders  who  have  deserved  so  well  of  religion,  civil  society,  and  let- 
ters ;  they  loudly  declare  that  the  Orders  have  no  right  to  exist,  and,  in  so 
doing,  make  common  cause  with  the  falsehoods  of  the  heretics.  For,  as  was 
most  wisely  taught  by  Our  Predecessor  of  illustrious  memory,  Pius  VI.,  "the 
abolition  of  Religious  Orders  injures  the  state  of  public  profession  of  the 
Evangelical  counsels  ;  injures  a  mode  of  life  recommended  by  the  Church  as 
in  conformity  with  Apostolical  doctrine  ;  does  wrong  to  the  illustrious  founders 
whom  we  venerate  upon  our  altars,  and  who  constituted  these  societies  under 
the  inspiration  of  God  "  (Epistle  to  Cardinal  de  la  Rochefoucauld,  March  10th, 
1791).  And  these  same  persons  also  impiously  pretend  that  citizens  should 
be  deprived  of  the  liberty  of  publicly  bestowing  on  the  Church  their  alms  for 
the  sake  of  Christian  charity,  and  that  the  law  forbidding  "  servile  labor  on 
account  of  Divine  worship"  upon  certain  fixed  days  should, be  abolished, 
upon  the  most  fallacious  pretext  that  such  liberty  and  such  law  are  contrary 
to  the  principles  of  political  economy.  Not  content  with  abolishing  religion 
in  public  society,  they  desire,  further,  to  banish  it  from  families  and  private 
life.  Teaching  and  professing  those  most  fatal  errors  of  Socialism  and  Com- 
munism, they  declare  that  "domestic  society,  or  the  family,  derives  all  its 
reason  of  existence  solely  from  civil  law,  whence  it  is  to  be  concluded  that 
from  civil  law  descend  and  depend  all  the  rights  of  parents  over  their  chil- 
dren, and,  above  all,  the  right  of  instructing  and  educating  them."  By  such 
impious  opinions  and  machinations  do  these  most  false  teachers  endeavor  to 
eliminate  the  salutary  teaching  and  influence  of  the  Catholic  Church  from 
the  instruction  and  education  of  youth,  and  to  miserably  infect  and  deprave 
by  every  pernicious  error  and  vice  the  tender  and  pliant  minds  of  youth. 

All  those  who  endeavor  to  throw  into  confusion  both  religious  and  political 
affairs,  to  destroy  the  good  order  of  society,  and  to  annihilate  all  Divine  and 


724  APPENDIX. 

human  rights,  have  always  exerted  all  their  criminal  schemes,  attention,  and 
efforts  upon  the  manner  in  which  they  might,  above  all,  deprave  and  delude 
unthinking  youth,  as  We  have  already  shown  :  it  is  upon  the  corruption  of 
youth  that  they  place  all  their  hopes.  Thus,  they  never  cease  to  attack  by 
every  method  the  Clergy,  both  secular  and  regular,  from  whom,  as  testify  to 
us  in  so  conspicuous  a  manner  the  most  certain  records  of  history,  such  con- 
siderable benefits  have  been  bestowed  in  abundance  upon  Christian  and  Civil 
society,  and  upon  the  republic  of  letters ;  asserting  of  the  clergy  in  general 
that  they  are  the  enemies  of  the  useful  sciences,  of  progress,  and  of  civiliza- 
tion, and  that  they  ought  to  be  deprived  of  all  participation  in  the  work  of 
teaching  and  training  the  young. 

Others,  reviving  the  depraving  fictions  of  innovators,  errors  many  times 
condemned,  presume,  with  extraordinary  impudence,  to  subordinate  the  au- 
thority of  the  Church  and  of  this  Apostolic  See,  conferred  upon  it  by  Christ 
Our  Lord,  to  the  judgment  of  civil  authority,  and  to  deny  all  the  rights  of 
this  same  Church  and  this  See  with  regard  to  those  things  which  appertain 
to  the  secular  order.  For  these  persons  do  not  blush  to  aflSrm  "that  the  laws 
of  the  Church  do  not  bind  the  conscience  if  they  are  not  promulgated  by  the 
civil  power ;  that  the  acts  and  decrees  of  the  Roman  Pontiffs  concerning  re- 
ligion and  the  Church  require  the  sanction  and  approbation,  or  at  least,  the 
assent  of  the  civil  powers ;  and  that  the  Apostolic  Constitutions  (Clement 
XII.,  Benedict  XiV.,  Pius  VII.,  Leo  XII.)  condemning  secret  societies, 
whether  these  exact  or  do  not  exact  an  oath  of  secrecy,  and  branding  with 
anathema  their  followers  and  partisans,  have  no  force  in  those  countries  of 
the  world  where  such  associations  are  tolerated  by  the  civil  government."  It 
is  likewise  affirmed  "that  the  excommunications  launched  by  the  Council  of 
Trent  and  the  Roman  Pontiffs  against  those  who  invade  and  usurp  the  pos- 
sessions of  the  Church  and  its  rights,  strive,  by  confounding  the  spiritual  and 
temporal  orders,  to  attain  solely  a  mere  earthly  end  ;  that  the  Church  can  de- 
cide nothing  which  may  bind  the  consciences  of  the  faithful  in  the  temporal 
order  of  things ;  that  the  right  of  the  Church  is  not  competent  to  restrain 
with  temporal  penalties  the  violators  of  her  laws ;  and  that  it  is  in  accord- 
ance with  the  principles  of  theology  and  of  public  law  for  the  Civil  Govern- 
ment to  appropriate  property  possessed  by  the  churches,  the  Religious  Or- 
ders, and  other  pious  establishments.  And  they  have  no  shame  in  avowing 
openly  and  publicly  the  heretical  statement  and  principle  from  which  has 
emanated  so  many  errors  and  perverse  opinions,  that  the  ecclesiastical  power 
is  not  by  the  law  of  God  made  distinct  from,  and  independent  of,  civil  pow- 
er, and  that  no  distinction,  no  independence  of  this  kind,  can  be  maintained 
without  the  Church  invading  and  usurping  the  essential  rights  of  the  civil 
power." 

Neither  can  We  pass  over  in  silence  the  audacity  of  those  who,  not  endur- 
ing sound  doctrine,  assert  that  "  the  judgments  and  decrees  of  the  Holy  See, 
the  object  of  which  is  declared  to  concern  the  general  welfare  of  the  Church, 
its  rights,  and  its  discipline,  do  not  claim  acquiescence  and  obedience  under 
pain  of  sin  and  loss  of  the  Catholic  profession,  if  they  do  not  treat  of  the  dog- 
mas of  faith  and  of  morals. " 


APPENDIX.  725 

How  contrary  is  this  doctrine  to  the  Catholic  dogma  of  the  plenary  pow- 
er divinely  conferred  on  the  Sovereign  Pontiff  by  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  to 
guide,  to  supervise,  and  govern  the  Universal  Church,  no  one  can  fail  to  see 
and  understand  clearly  and  evidently. 

Amid  so  great  a  perversity  of  depraved  opinions,  We,  remembering  Our 
Apostolic  duty,  and  solicitous  before  all  things  for  Our  most  holy  religion, 
for  sound  doctrine,  for  the  salvation  of  the  souls  confided  to  Us,  and  for  the 
welfare  of  human  society  itself,  have  considered  the  moment  opportune  to 
raise  anew  Our  Apostolic  vo^ce. 

Therefore  do  We  by  Our  Apostolic  authority  reprobate,  denounce,  and 
condemn  generally  and  particularly  all  the  evil  opinions  and  doctrines  spe- 
cially mentioned  in  this  Letter,  and  We  wish  that  they  may  be  held  as  rep- 
robated, denounced, and  condemned  by  all  the  children  of  the  Catholic  Church. 

But  You  know  further.  Venerable  Brothers,  that  in  our  time  the  haters  of 
all  truth  and  justice  and  violent  enemies  of  our  religion  have  spread  abroad 
other  impious  doctrines  by  means  of  pestilent  books,  pamphlets,  and  journals, 
which,  distributed  over  the  surface  of  the  earth,  deceive  the  people  and  wick- 
edly lie.  You  are  not  ignorant  that  in  our  day  men  are  found  who,  animated 
and  excited  by  the  spirit  of  Satan,  have  arrived  at  that  excess  of  impiety  as 
not  to  fear  to  deny  Our  Lord  and  Master  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  attack  His 
Divinity  with  scandalous  persistence.  And  here  We  can  not  abstain  from 
awarding  You  well-merited  praise.  Venerable  Brothers,  for  all  the  care  and 
zeal  with  which  You  have  raised  Your  episcopal  voice  against  so  great  an  im- 
piety. 

And  therefore  in  this  present  letter,  We  speak  to  You  with  all  affection ; 
to  You  who,  called  to  partake  Our  cares,  are  Our  greatest  support  in  the 
midst  of  Our  very  great  grief.  Our  joy  and  Our  consolation,  by  reason  of  the 
excellent  piety  of  which  You  give  proof  in  maintaining  religion,  and  the  mar- 
velous love,  faith,  and  discipline  with  which,  united  by  the  strongest  and  most 
affectionate  ties  to  Us  and  this  Apostolic  See,  You  strive  valiantly  and  accu- 
rately to  fulfill  Your  most  weighty  episcopal  ministry.  We  do,  then,  expect 
from  Your  excellent  pastoral  zeal  that,  taking  the  sword  of  the  Spirit,  which 
is  the  Word  of  God,  and  strengthened  by  the  grace  of  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
You  will  watch  with  redoubled  care,  that  the  fnithful  committed  to  Your 
charge  "  abstain  from  evil  pasturage, which  Jesus  Christ  doth  not  till,  because 
His  Father  hath  not  planted  it "  (St.  Ignac.  M.  ad  Philadelph.  St.  Leo, 
epist.  15G,  al.  125).  Never  cease,  then,  to  inculcate  on  the  faithful  that  all 
true  happiness  for  mankind  proceeds  from  our  august  religion,  from  its  doc- 
trines and  practice,  and  that  that  people  is  happy  who  have  the  Lord  for 
their  God  (Psalm  143).  Teach  them  "  that  kingdoms  rest  upon  the  founda- 
tion of  the  Catholic  faith  (St.  Celest.,  epist.  22,  ad  Syn.  Eph.),  and  that  noth- 
ing is  so  deadly,  nothing  so  certain  to  engender  every  ill,  nothing  so  exposed 
to  danger,  as  for  men  to  believe  that  tliey  stand  in  need  of  nothing  else  than 
the  free-will  which  we  received  at  birth,  if  we  ask  nothing  further  from  the 
Lord — that  is  to  say,  if,  forgetting  our  Author,  we  abjure  his  power  to  siiow 
that  we  are  free."  And  do  not  omit  to  teach  "that  the  Royal  power  has 
been  established  not  only  to  exercise  the  government  of  the  world,  but,  above 


Y26  APPENDIX. 

all,  for  the  protection  of  the  Church  (St.  Leo,  epist.  156,  al.  125),  and  that 
there  is  nothing  more  profitable  and  more  glorious  for  the  Sovereigns  of 
States  and  Kings  than  to  leave  the  Catholic  Church  to  exercise  its  laws,  and 
not  to  permit  any  to  curtail  its  liberty  ;"  as  Our  most  wise  and  courageous 
Predecessor,  St.  Felix,  wrote  to  the  Emperor  Zeno.  "  It  is  certain  tliat  it 
is  advantageous  for  Sovereigns,  when  the  cause  of  God  is  in  question,  to  sub- 
mit their  Koyal  will  according  to  his  ordinance  to  the  Priests  of  Jesus  Christ, 
and  not  to  prefer  it  before  them,"  (Pius  VII.  Epist.  Encycl.  Diu  satis,  15th 
May,  1800.) 

And  if  always,  so,  especially  at  present,  is  it  Our  duty.  Venerable  Brothers, 
in  the  midst  of  the  numerous  calamities  of  the  Church  and  of  civil  society,  in 
view  of  the  terrible  conspiracy  of  our  adversaries  against  the  Catholic  Church 
and  this  Apostolic  See,  and  the  great  accumulation  of  errors,  it  is,  before  all 
things,  necessary  to  go  with  faith  to  the  Throne  of  Grace  to  obtain  mercy  and 
find  grace  in  timely  aid. 

We  have  therefore  judged  it  right  to  excite  the  piety  of  all  the  faithful  in 
order  that,  with  Us  and  with  You  all,  they  may  pray  without  ceasing  to  the 
Father  of  lights  and  of  mercies,  supplicating  and  beseeching  Him  fervently 
and  humbly,  in  order  also  in  the  plenitude  of  their  faith  they  may  seek  ref- 
uge in  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  has  redeemed  us  to  God  with  His  blood, 
that  by  their  earnest  and  continual  prayers  they  may  obtain  from  that  most 
dear  Heart,  victim  of  burning  charity  for  us,  that  it  would  draw  all  by  the 
bonds  of  His  love,  and  that  all  men  being  inflamed  by  His  holy  love  may  live 
according  to  His  heart,  pleasing  God  in  all  things,  and  being  fruitful  in  all 
good  works. 

But,  as  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  prayers  most  agreeable  to  God  are  those 
of  the  men  who  ai)proach  Him  with  a  heart  pure  from  all  stain.  We  have 
thought  it  good  to  open  to  Christians,  with  Apostolic  liberality,  the  Heavenly 
treasures  of  the  Church  confided  to  Our  dispensation,  so  that  the  fiiithful, 
more  strongly  drawn  toward  true  piety  and  purified  from  the  stain  of  their 
sins  by  the  Sacrament  of  Penance,  may  more  confidently  ofter  up  their  prayers 
to  God  and  obtain  His  mercy  and  grace. 

By  these  Letters  emanating  from  Our  Apostolic  authority.  We  grant  to  all 
and  each  of  the  faithful  of  both  sexes  throughout  the  Catholic  world  a  Ple- 
nary Indulgence  in  the  manner  of  a  Jubilee  dunng  one  month  up  to  the  end 
of  the  coming  year,  18G5,  and  not  longer,  to  be  carried  into  efflect  by  You, 
Venerable  Brethren,  and  the  other  legitimate  local  Ordinaries,  in  the  form 
and  manner  laid  down  at  the  commencement  of  Our  Sovereign  Pontificate 
by  Our  Apostolical  Letters,  in  form  of  a  Brief,  dated  the  20th  of  November, 
anno  184G,  and  sent  to  the  whole  Episcopate  of  the  world,  commencing  with 
the  words  ^^Arcano  Divince  Providentice  consilio"  and  with  the  faculties  given 
by  Us  in  those  same  Letters.  We  desire,  however,  that  all  the  prescriptions 
of  Our  letters  shall  be  observed,  saving  the  exceptions  We  have  declared  are 
to  be  made.  And  We  have  granted  this,  notwithstanding  all  which  might 
make  to  the  contrary,  even  those  worthy  of  special  and  individual  mention  and 
derogation  ;  and  in  order  that  every  doubt  and  difficulty  may  be  removed,  We 
have  ordered  that  copies  of  those  Letters  should  be  again  forwarded  to  You. 


APPENDIX.  '^27, 

Let  us  implore, Venerable  Brethren,  from  our  inmost  hearts,  and  with  all 
our  Souls,  the  mercy  of  God.  He  has  encouraged  us  so  to  do,  by  saying, 
"  I  will  not  withdraw  my  mercy  from  them."  Let  us  ask,  and  we  shall  re- 
ceive ;  and  if  there  is  slowness  or  delay  in  its  reception,  because  we  have 
grievously  offended,  let  us  knock,  because  to  him  that  knocketh  it  shall  be 
opened ;  if  our  prayers,  groans,  and  tears,  in  which  we  must  persist  and  be 
obstinate,  knock  at  the  door;  and  if  our  prayer  be  united,  let  each  one  pray 
to  God,  not  for  himself  alone,  but  for  all  his  brethren,  as  the  "Lord  hath 
taught  us  to  pray"  (St.  Cyprian,  epistle  ii.).  But  in  order  that  God  may 
accede  more  easily  to  Our  and  Your  prayers,  and  to  those  of  all  His  faithful 
servants,  let  us  employ  in  all  confidence  as  our  Mediatrix  with  him  the  Vir- 
gin Mary,  Mother  of  God,  who  "has  destroyed  all  heresies  throughout  the 

world,  and  who,  the  most  loving  Mother  of  us  all,  is  very  gracious and 

full  of  mercy allows  herself  to  be  entreated  by  all,  shows  herself  most 

clement  toward  all,  and  takes  under  her  pitying  care  all  our  necessities  with 
a  most  ample  affection  "  (*S^  Bernard,  Germ,  de  duodecim.  perogativis  B.  M. 
V.  in  verbis  Apocalyp.^,  and  who,  "  sitting  as  queen  upon  the  right  hand  of 
her  only  begotten  Son  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  in  a  golden  vestment  clothed 
around  with  various  adornments,"  there  is  nothing  which  she  can  not  obtain 
from  Him.  Let  us  implore  also  the  intervention  of  the  Blessed  Peter,  Chief 
of  the  Apostles,  and  of  his  co-Apostle  Paul,  and  of  all  those  Saints  of  Heav- 
en, who,  having  already  become  the  friends  of  God,  have  been  admitted  into 
the  celestial  kingdom,  where  they  are  crowned  and  bear  palms,  and  who 
henceforth,  certain  of  their  own  immortality,  are  solicitous  for  our  salvation. 

In  conclusion.  We  ask  of  God,  from  Our  inmost  soul,  the  abundance  of  all 
his  celestial  benefits  for  You,  and  We  bestow  upon  You,  Venerable  Brethren, 
and  upon  all  faithful  Clergy  and  Laity  committed  to  Your  care.  Our  Apos- 
tolic Benediction  from  the  most  loving  depths  of  Our  hearts,  in  token  of  Our 
charity  toward  You.    •  Pius  PP.  IX. 

Given  at  Rome,  from  St.  Peter's,  this  8th  of  December,  1864,  the  tenth  anniversary 
of  the  Dogmatic  Definition  of  the  Immaculate  Conception  of  the  Virgin  Maryv 
Mother  of  God,  in  the  nineteenth  Year  of  Our  Pontificate. 


D. 

THE  SYLLABUS  OF  THE  PRINCIPAL  ERRORS  OF  OUR  TIME, 
WHICH  ARE  STIGMATIZED  IN  THE  CONSISTORTAL  ALLO- 
CUTIONS, ENCYCLICAL,  AND  OTHER  APOSTOLICAL  LET- 
TERS OF  OUR  MOST  HOLY  FATHER  POPE  PIUS  IX. 

I.   Pantheism,  Naturalism,  and  Absolute  Rationalism. 

1.  There  exists  no  Divine  Power,  Supreme  Being,  Wisdom,  and  Provi- 
dence distinct  from  the  universe,  and  God  is  none  other  than  nature,  and  is 
therefore  mutable.  In  effect,  God  is  produced  in  man  and  in  the  world,  and 
all  things  are  God,  and  have  the  very  substance  of  God.  God  is  therefore 
one  and  the  same  thing  with  the  Avorld,  and  tjjence  spirit  is  the  same  thing 


728  ,  APPENDIX. 

with  matter,  necessity  with  liberty,  true  with  false,  good  with  evil,  justice 
with  injustice.     (Allocution  "  Maxima  quidem,"  9th  June,  1862.) 

2.  All  action  of  God  upon  man  and  the  world  is  to  be  denied.  (Allocu- 
tion "Maxima  quidem," 9th  June,  1862.) 

3.  Human  reason,  without  any  regard  to  God,  is  the  sole  arbiter  of  truth 
and  falsehood,  of  good  and  evil ;  it  is  its  own  law  to  itself,  and  suffices  by  its 
natural  force  to  secure  the  welfare  of  men  and  of  nations.  (Allocution  "  Max- 
ima quidem,"  9th  June,  1862.) 

4.  All  the  truths  of  religion  are  derived  from  the  native  strength  of  human 
reason  ;  whence  reason  is  the  master  rule  by  which  man  can  and  ought  to 
arrive  'at  the  knowledge  of  all  truths  of  every  kind.  (Encyclical  letters,  "  Qui 
pluribus,"9th  November,  1846,  "Singulari  quidem,"  17th  March,  1856,  and 
the  Allocution  "  Maxima  quidem,"  9th  June,  1862.) 

5.  Divine  revelation  is  imperfect,  and  therefore  subject  to  a  continual  and 
indefinite  progress,  which  coiTesponds  with  the  progress  of  human  reason. 
(Encyclical  *'Qui  pluribus,"  9th  November,  1846,  and  the  Allocution  "Max- 
ima quidem,"  9th  June,  1862.) 

6.  Christian  faith  is  in  opposition  to  human  reason,  and  divine  revelation 
not  only  does  not  benefit,  but  even  injures,  the  perfection  of  man.  (Encyclical 
"Qui  pluribus,"  9th  November,  1846,  and  the  Allocution  "Maxima  qui- 
dem," 9th  June,  1862.) 

7.  The  prophecies  and  miracles,  uttered  and  narrated  in  the  Sacred  Script- 
ures, are  the  fictions  of  poets ;  and  the  mysteries  of  the  Christian  faith,  the 
result  of  philosophical  investigations.  In  the  books  of  the  two  Testaments 
there  are  contained  mythical  inventions,  and  Jesus  Christ  is  Himself  a  myth- 
ical fiction.  (Encyclical  "Qui  pluribus,"  9t]i  November,  1846,  and  the  Allo- 
cution "Maxima  quidem,"  9th  June,  1862.) 

II.   Moderate  Rationalism.     , 

8.  As  human  reason  is  placed  on  a  level  with  Religion,  so  theological  mat- 
ters must  be  treated  in  the  same  manner  as  philosophical  ones.  (Allocution 
"Singulari  quadam  perfusi,"9th  December,  1854.) 

9.  All  the  dogmas  of  the  Christian  Religion  are,  without  exception,  the 
object  of  natural  science  or  philosophy,  and  human  reason,  instructed  solely 
by  history,  is  able,  by  its  own  natural  strength  and  principles,  to  arrive  at  the 
true  knowledge  of  even  the  most  abstruse  dogmas :  provided  such  dogmas 
be  proposed  as  subject-matter  for  human  reason.  (Letter  ad  Archiep.  Frising, 
"Gravissimas,"  11th  December,  1862 ;  to  the  same,  "Tuas  libenter,"  21st 
December,  1863.) 

10.  As  the  philosopher  is  one  thing,  and  philosophy  is  another,  so  it  is  the 
right  and  duty  of  the  philosopher  to  submit  himself  to  the  authority  which  he 
shall  have  recognized  as  true ;  but  philosophy  neither  can  nor  ought  to  sub- 
mit to  any  authority.  (Letter  ad  Archiep.  Frising,  "Gravissimas,"  11th  De- 
cember, 1862;  to  the  same,  "Tuas  libenter,"  21st  December,  1863.) 

11.  The  Church  not  only  ought  never  to  animadvert  upon  philosophy,  but 
ought  to  tolerate  the  errors  of  philosophy,  leaving  to  philoso])hy  the  care  of 
their  correction.    (Letter  ad  Archiep.  Frising,  11th  December,  1862.) 


APPENDIX.  729 

12.  The  decrees  of  the  Apostolic  See  and  of  the  Roman  Congregation  fet- 
ter the  free  progress  of  science.    {Id.  ibid.) 

13.  The  method  and  principles  by  which  the  old  scholastic  Doctors  cul- 
tivated theology  are  no  longer  suitable  to  the  demands  of  the  age  and  the 
progress  of  science.    {lb.  "  Tuas  libenter,"  21st  December,  1863.) 

14.  Philosophy  must  be  treated  of  without  any  account  being  taken  of  su- 
pernatural revelation.     {Id.  ibid.) 

N.B. — To  the  rationalistic  system  belong,  in  great  part,  the  errors  of  An- 
thony Gunther,  condemned  in  the  letter  to  the  Cardinal  Archbishop  of  Co- 
logne, "Eximiam  tuam,"  15th  June,  1847;  and  in  that  to  the  Bishop  of 
Breslau,  "Dolore  baud  mediocri,"  30th  April,  1860. 

III.  Indifferentism,  Latitudinarianism. 

15.  Every  man  is  free  to  embrace  and  profess  the  religion  he  shall  believe 
true,  guided  by  the  light  of  reason.  (Apostolic  Letters  "  Multiplices  inter," 
10th  June,  1851 ;  Allocution  "  Maxima  quidem,"  9th  June,  1862.) 

16.  Men  may  in  any  religion  find  the  way  of  eternal  salvation,  and  obtain 
eternal  salvation.  (Encyclical  Letter  "  Qui  pluribus,"  9th  November,  1846; 
Allocution  "  Ubi  primum,"  17th  December,  1847;  Encyclical  Letter  "Sin- 
gulari  quidem,"  17th  March,  1856.) 

17.  We  may  entertain  at  least  a  well-founded  hope  for  the  eternal  salvation 
of  all  those  who  are  in  no  manner  in  the  true  Church  of  Christ.  (Allocution 
"  Singular!  quadam,"  9th  December,  1854;  Encyclical  Letter  "  Quanto 
conficiamur,"  17th  August,  1863.) 

18.  Protestantism  is  nothing  more  than  another  form  of  the  same  true 
Christian  Religion,  in  which  it  is  possible  to  be  equally  pleasing  to  God  as  in 
the  Catholic  Church.  (Encyclical  Letter  "  Noscitis  et  Nobiscum,"  8th  Decem- 
ber, 1849.) 

IV.  Socialism,  Communism^  Secret  Societies^  Biblical  Societies,  Clerico-lib- 
eral  Societies. 
Pests  of  this  description  are  frequently  rebuked  in  the  severest  terms  in 
the  Encyclical  "Qui  pluribus,"  9th  November,  1846;  Allocution  "Quibus 
quantisque,"  20th  April,  1849;  Encyclical  "Noscitis  et  Nobiscum,"  8th 
December,  1849;  Allocution  "Singular!  quadam,"  9th  December,  1854; 
EncycUcal  "  Quanto  conficiamur  majrore,"  10th  August,  1863. 

V.  Errors  concerning  the  Church  and  her  Rights. 

19.  The  Church  is  not  a  true,  and  perfect,  and  entirely  free  society,  nor 
does  she  enjoy  peculiar  and  perpetual  rights  conferred  upon  her  by  her  Di 
vine  Founder,  but  it  appertains  to  the  civil  power  to  define  what  are  the 
rights  and  limits  with  which  the  Church  may  exercise  authority.  (Allocu- 
tion "  Singular!  quadam,"  9th  December,  1854  ;  "  Multis  gravibusque,"  17th 
December,  1860 ;   "  Maxima  quidem,"  9th  June,  1862.) 

20.  The  ecclesiastical  power  must  not  exercise  its  authority  without  the 
permission  and  assent  of  the  civil  Government.  (Allocution  "  Meminit  unus- 
quisque,"  30th  September,  1861.) 


730  APPENDIX. 

21.  The  Church  has  not  the  power  of  defining  dogmatically  that  the  Re- 
ligion of  the  Catholic  Church  is  the  only  true  religion.  (Letter  Apostolic 
"Multiplices  inter,"  10th  June,  1851.) 

22.  The  obligation  which  binds  Catholic  teachers  and  authors  applies  only 
to  those  things  which  are  proposed  for  universal  belief  as  dogmas  of  the  faith, 
by  the  infallible  judgment  of  the  Church.  (Letter  ad  Archiep.  Prising, "  Tuas 
libenter,"  21st  December,  18G3.) 

23.  The  Roman  Pontiffs  and  Ecumenical  Councils  have  exceeded  the 
limits  of  their  power,  have  usurped  the  rights  of  Princes,  and  have  even 
committed  errors  in  defining  matters  of  faith  iand  morals.  (Letter  Apostolic 
"Multiplices  inter,"  10th  June,  1851.) 

24.  The  Church  has  not  the  power  of  availing  herself  of  force  or  any  di- 
rect or  indirect  temporal  power.  (Letter  Apostolic  "Ad  Apostolicae,"  22d 
August,  1851.) 

25.  In  addition  to  the  authority  inherent  in  the  Episcopate,  a  further  and 
temporal  power  is  granted  to  it  by  the  civil  authority,  either  expressly  or 
tacitly,  which  power  is  on  that  account  also  revocable  by  the  civil  authority 
whenever  it  pleases.     (Letter  Apostolic  "Ad  Apostolicas,"  22d  August,  1851.) 

2G.  The  Church  has  not  the  innate  and  legitimate  right  of  acquisition  and 
possession.  (Allocution  "Nunquam  fore,"  15th  December,  1856  ;  Encyclical 
"Incredibili,"  17th  September,  1863.) 

27.  The  ministers  of  the  Church  and  the  Roman  Pontiff  ought  to  be  ab- 
solutely excluded  from  all  charge  and  dominion  over  temporal  affairs.  (Allo- 
cution "Maxima  quidem,"9th  June,  1862.) 

28.  Bishops  have  not  the  right  of  promulgating  even  their  Apostolic  Let- 
ters without  the  permission  of  the  Government.  (Allocution  "Nunquam  fore," 
15th  December,  1856.) 

29.  Dispensations  granted  by  the  Roman  Pontiff  must  be  considered  null, 
unless  they  have  been  asked  for  by  the  civil  Government.    {Id.  ibid.) 

30.  The  immunity  of  the  Church  and  of  ecclesiastical  persons  derives  its 
origin  from  civil  law.    (Letter  Apostolic  "  Multiplices  inter,"  10th  June,  1851.) 

31.  Ecclesiastical  Courts  for  the  temporal  causes  of  the  clergy,  whether 
civil  or  criminal,  ought  by  all  means  to  be  abolished,  even  without  the  con- 
currence and  against  the  protest  of  the  Holy  See.  (Allocution  "Acerbissi- 
mum,"  27th  September,  1852;  and  "Nunquam  fore,"  15th  December,  1856.) 

32.  The  personal  immunity  exonerating  the  clergy  from  military  service 
may  be  abolished,  without  violation  either  of  natural  right  or  of  equity.  Its 
abolition  is  called  for  by  civil  progress,  especially  in  a  community  constituted 
upon  principles  of  Liberal  Government.  (Letter  to  the  Archbishop  of  Mont- 
renl,  "Singularis  Nobisque,"  29th  September,  1864.) 

33.  It  does  not  appertain  exclusively  to  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  by  any 
right,  proper  and  inherent,  to  direct  the  teaching  of  theological  subjects. 
(Letter  ad  Archiep.  Prising,  "Tuas  libenter,"  21st  December,  1863.) 

34.  The  teaching  of  those  who  compare  the  Sovereign  Pontiff  to  a  free 
Sovereign  acting  in  the  Universal  Church,  is  a  doctrine  which  prevailed  in 
the  Middle  Ages.     (Letter  Apostolic  "Ad  Apostolica;,"  22d  August,  1851.) 

35.  There  would  be  no  obstacle  to  the  sentence  of  a  General  Council,  or 


APPENDIX.  731 

the  act  of  all  the  universal  peoples,  transferring  the  Pontifical  Sovereignty 
from  the  Bishop  and  city  of  Rome  to  some  other  bishopric  and  some  other 
city.     {Id.  ibid.) 

36.  The  definition  of  a  National  Council  does  not  admit  of  any  subsequent 
discussion,  and  the  civil  power  can  regard  as  settled  an  affair  decided  by  such 
National  Council.    {Id.  ibid.) 

37.  National  Churches  can  be  established  after  being  withdrawn  and  plain- 
ly separated  from  tlie  authority  of  the  Roman  Pontiff.  (Allocution  "  Multis 
gravibusque,"17th  December,  1860 ;  "Jamdudum  cernimus,"  18th  March, 
1861.) 

38.  Roman  Pontiffs  have,  by  their  too  arbitrary  conduct,  contributed  to 
the  division  of  the  Church  into  Eastern  and  Western.  (Letter  Apostolic 
"Ad  Apostolica3,"22d  August,  1851.) 

VI.  Errors  about  Civil  Society  considered  both  in  itself  and  in  its  Relation 
to  the  Church. 

39.  The  Republic  is  the  origin  and  source  of  all  rights,  and  possesses  rights 
which  are  not  circumscribed  by  any  limits.  (Allocution  "Maxima  quidem," 
9th  June,  1862.) 

40.  The  teaching  of  the  Catholic  Church  is  opposed  to  the  well-being  and 
interests  of  society.  (Encyclical  "  Qui  pluribus,"  9th  November,  1846  ;  Allo- 
cution "  Quibus  quantisque,"  20th  April,  1849.) 

41.  The  civil  power,  even  when  exercised  by  an  infidel  Sovereign,  possess- 
es an  indirect  and  negative  power  over  religious  affairs.  It  therefore  possess- 
es not  only  the  right  called  that  of  exequatur,  but  that  of  the  (so-called)  ap- 
pellatio  ab  abusu.     (Letter  Apostolic  "Ad  Apostolica3,"  22d  August,  1861.) 

42.  In  the  case  of  conflicting  laws  between  the  two  Powers,  the  civil  law 
ought  to  prevail.     (Letter  Apostolic  "Ad  ApostoHcaa,"  22d  August,  1851.) 

43.  The  civil  power  has  a  right  to  break,  and  to  declare  and  render  null 
the  conventions  (commonly  called  Concordats)  concluded  with  the  Apostolic 
See,  relative  to  the  use  of  rights  appertaining  to  the  ecclesiastical  immunity, 
without  the  consent  of  the  Holy  See,  and  even  contrary  to  its  protest.  (Allo- 
cution "In  Consistoriali,"  1st  November,  1850;  "Multis  gravibusque,"  17th 
December,  1860.) 

44.  The  civil  authority  may  interfere  in  matters  relating  to  Religion,  mo- 
rality, and  spiritual  government.  Hence  it  has  control  over  the  instructions 
for  the  guidance  of  consciences  issued,  conformably  with  their  mission,  by 
the  pastors  of  the  Church.  Further,  it  possesses  power  to  decree,  in  the  mat- 
ter of  administering  the  Divine  Sacraments,  as  to  the  dispositions  necessary 
for  their  reception.  (Allocution  "In  Consistoriali,"  1st  November,  1850  ;  Al- 
locution "Maxima  quidem," 9th  June,  1862.) 

45.  The  entire  direction  of  public  schools  in  which  the  youth  of  Christian 
States  are  educated,  except  (to  a  certain  extent)  in  the  case  of  Episcopal 
seminaries,  may  and  must  appertain  to  the  civil  power,  and  belong  to  it  so 
far  that  no  other  authority  whatsoever  shall  be  recognized  as  having  any 
right  to  interfere  in  the  discipline  of  the  schools,  the  arrangement  of  the 
studies,  the  taking  of  degrees,  or  the  choice  and  approval  of  the  teachers. 


732  APPENDIX. 

(Allocution  "In  Consistoriali,"  1st  November,  1850;  Allocution  "Quibus 
luctuosissimis,  5th  September,  1851.) 

46.  Much  more,  even  in  Clerical  Seminaries,  the  method  of  study  to  be 
adopted  is  subject  to  the  civil  authority.  (Allocution  "  Nunquara  fore,"  15th 
December,  1856.) 

47.  The  best  theory  of  civil  society  requires  that  popular  schools,  open  to 
the  children  of  all  classes,  and  generally  all  public  institutes  intended  for  in- 
struction in  letters  and  philosophy,  and  for  conducting  the  education  of  the 
young,  should  be  freed  from  all  ecclesiastical  authority,  government,  and  in- 
terference, and  should  be  fully  subject  to  the  civil  and  political  power,  in  con- 
formity with  the  will  of  rulers  and  the  prevalent  opinions  of  the  age.  (Letter 
to  the  Archbishop  of  Fribourg,  "Quum  non  Sine,"  14th  July,  1864.) 

48.  This  system  of  instructing  youth,  which  consists  in  separating  it  from 
the  Catholic  faith  and  from  the  power  of  the  Clmrch,  and  in  teaching  exclu- 
sively, or  at  least  primarily,  the  knowledge  of  natural  things,  and  the  earthly 
ends  of  social  life  ulone,  may  be  approved  by  Catholics.     {Id.  ibid.) 

49.  The  civil  power  has  the  right  to  prevent  ministers  of  Religion  and  the 
faithful  from  communicating  freely  and  mutually  with  each  other,  and  with 
the  Roman  Pontiff.     (Allocution  "  Maxima  quidem,"  9th  June,  1862.) 

50.  The  secular  authority  possesses,  as  inherent  in  itself,  the  right  of  pre- 
senting Bishops,  and  may  require  of  them  that  they  take  possession  of  their  di- 
oceses, before  having  received  canonical  institution  and  the  Apostolic  Letters 
from  the  Holy  See.     (Allocution  "Nunquam  fore,"  15th  December,  1856.) 

51.  And,  further,  the  Secular  Government  has  the  right  of  deposing  Bish- 
ops from  their  Pastoral  functions,  and  it  is  not  bound  to  obey  the  Roman 
Pontiff  in  those  things  which  relate  to  Episcopal  Sees  and  the  institution  of 
Bishops.     (Letter  Apostolic  "Multiplices  inter,"  10th  June,  1851;  Allocu- 

,  tion  "  Acerbissimum,"  27th  September,  1852.) 

52.  The  Government  has  of  itself  the  right  to  alter  the  age  prescribed  by 
the  Church  for  the  religious  profession  both  of  men  and  women ;  and  it  may 
enjoin  upon  all  religious  establishments  to  admit  no  person  to  take  solemn 
vows  without  its  permission.  (Allocution  "  Nunquam  fore,"  15th  December, 
1856.) 

53.  The  laws  for  the  protection  of  religious  establishments,  and  securing 
their  rights  and  duties,  ought  to  be  abolished ;  nay,  more,  the  civil  govern- 
ment may  lend  its  assistance  to  all  who  desire  to  quit  the  religious  life  they 
have  undertaken,  and  break  their  vows.  The  government  may  also  suppress 
Religious  Orders,  collegiate  Churches,  and  simple  Benefices,  even  those  be- 
longing to  private  patronage,  and  submit  their  goods  and  revenues  to  the 
administration  and  disposal  of  the  civil  power.  (Allocution  "Acerbissimum," 
27th  September,  1852  ;  Allocution  "Probe  memineritis,"  22d  January,  1855 ; 
Allocution  "Cum  saepe,"26th  July,  1855.) 

54.  Kings  and  princes  are  not  only  exempt  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Church,  but  are  superior  to  the  Church,  in  litigated  questions  of  jurisdic- 
tion.    (Letter  Apostolic  "Multiplices  inter,"  10th  June,  1851.) 

55.  The  Church  ought  to  be  separated  from  the  State,  and  the  State  from 
the  Church.     (Allocution  "Acerbissimum,"  27th  September,  1852.) 


APPENDIX.  T33 

VII.  Errors  concerning  Natural  and  Christian  Ethics. 

56.  Moral  laws  do  not  stand  in  need  of  the  divine  sanction,  and  there  is 
no  necessity  that  human  laws  should  be  conformable  to  the  law  of  nature, 
and  receive  their  sanction  from  God.  (Allocution  "Maxima  quidera,"  9th 
June,  1862.) 

57.  Knowledge  of  Philosophical  things  and  morals,  and  also  civil  laws, 
may  and  must  be  independent  of  divine  and  ecclesiastical  authority.  (Allo- 
cution "Maxima  quidem,"  9th  June,  1862.) 

58.  No  other  forces  are  to  be  recognized  than  those  which  reside  in  mat- 
ter ;  and  all  moral  teaching  and  moral  excellence  ought  to  be  made  to  con- 
sist in  the  accumulation  and  increase  of  riches  by  every  possible  means,  and 
in  the  enjoyment  of  pleasure.  (Allocution  "Maxima  quidem,"  9th  June, 
1862  ;  Encyclical  "  Quanto  conficiamur,"  10th  August,  1863.) 

59.  Right  consists  in  the  material  fact,  and  all  human  duties  are  but  vain 
words,  and  all  human  acts  have  the  force  of  right.  (Allocution  "Maxima 
quidem,"  9th  June,  1862.) 

60.  Authority  is  nothing  else  but  the  result  of  numerical  superiority  and 
material  force.     (Allocution  "Maxima  quidem," 9th  June,  1862.) 

61.  An  unjust  act,  being  successful,  inflicts  no  injury  upon  the  sanctity  of 
right.     (Allocution  "  Jamdudum  cernimus,"  18th  March,  1861.) 

62.  The  principle  of  non-intervention,  as  it  is  called,  ought  to  be  proclaim- 
ed and  adhered  to.     (Allocution  "Novos  et  ante,"  28th  September,  1860.) 

63.  It  is  allowable  to  refuse  obedience  to  legitimate  Princes ;  nay,  more,  to 
rise  in  insurrection  against  them.  (Encyclical  "Qui  pluribus,"  9th  Novem- 
ber, 1846;  Allocution  "Quisque  vestrum,"  4th  October,  1847;  Encyclical 
"Noscitis  et  Nobiscum,"  8th  December,  1849;  Letter  Apostolic  "  Quum 
Catholica,"  26th  March,  1860.) 

64.  The  violation  of  a  solemn  oath,  even  every  wicked  and  flagitious  ac- 
tion repugnant  to  the  eternal  law,  is  not  only  not  blamable,  but  quite  lawful, 
and  worthy  of  the  highest  praise,  when  done  for  the  love  of  country.  (Allo- 
cution "Quibus  quantisque,"  20th  April,  1849.) 

VIII.  Errors  concerning  Christian  Marriage. 

65.  It  can  not  be  by  any  means  tolerated,  to  maintain  that  Christ  has 
raised  marriage  to  the  dignity  of  a  sacrament.  (Letter  Apostolic  "Ad 
Apostolicae,"  22d  August,  1851.) 

66.  The  Sacrament  of  marriage  is  only  an  adjunct  of  the  contract,  and 
separable  from  it,  and  the  sacrament  itself  consists  in  the  nuptial  benediction 
alone.     (Id.  ibid.) 

67.  By  the  law  of  nature,  the  marriage  tie  is  not  indissoluble,  and  in  many 
cases  divorce,  properly  so  called,  may  be  pronounced  by  the  civil  authority. 
{Id.  ibid.;  Allocution  "Acerbissimum,"  27th  September,  1852.) 

68.  The  Church  has  not  the  power  of  laying  down  what  are  diriment  im- 
pediments to  marriage.  The  civil  authority  does  possess  such  a  power,  and 
can  do  away  with  existing  impediments  to  marriage.  (Letter  Apostolic 
"Multiplices  inter,"  10th  June,  1851.) 


734  APPENDIX, 

GO.  The  Church  only  commenced  in  later  ages  to  bring  in  diriment  imped- 
iments, and  then  availing  herself  of  a  right  not  her  own,  but  borrowed  from 
the  civil  power.     (Letter  Apostolic  "Ad  Apostolicae, "  22d  August,  1851.) 

70.  The  canons  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  which  pronounce  censure  of 
anathema  against  those  who  deny  to  the  Church  the  right  of  laying  down 
what  are  diriment  impediments,  either  are  not  dogmatic,  or  must  be  under- 
stood as  referring  only  to  such  borrowed  power.     (Letter  Apostolic,  ibid.) 

71.  The  form  of  solemnizing  marriage  prescribed  by  the  said  Council,  un- 
der penalty  of  nullity,  does  not  bind  in  cases  where  the  civil  law  has  appoint- 
ed another  form,  and  where  it  decrees  that  this  new  form  shall  effectuate  a 
valid  marriage.     {Id.  ibid.) 

72.  Boniface  VIII.  is  the  first  who  declared  that  the  vow  of  chastity  pro- 
nounced at  Ordination  annuls  nuptials.     {Id.  ibid.) 

73.  A  merely  civil  contract  may  among  Christians  constitute  a  true  mar- 
riage; and  it  is  false,  either  that  the  marriage  contract  between  Christians 
is  always  a  sacrament,  or  that  the  contract  is  null  if  the  sacrament  be  ex- 
cluded. (Id.  ibid. ;  Letter  to  King  of  Sardinia,  9th  Sept.,  1852  ;  Allocution 
''Acerbissimum,"27th  Sept.,  1852  ;  "Multis  gravibusque,"17th  Dec,  I860,) 

74.  Matrimonial  causes  and  espousals  belong  by  their  very  nature  to  civil 
jurisdiction.  (Letter  Apostolic  "Ad  Apostolicae,"  22d  August,  1851 ;  Allo- 
cution "Acerbissimum,"27th  September,  1862.) 

N.B. — Two  other  errors  may  tend  in  this  direction:  those  upon  the  aboli- 
tion of  the  celibacy  of  priests,  and  the  preference  due  to  the  state  of  mar- 
riage over  that  of  virginity.  These  have  been  proscribed;  the  first  in  the 
Encyclical  "Qui  pluribus,"  9th  November,  1846;  the  second  in  the  Apos- 
tolic Letter  "Multiplices  inter,"  10th  June,  1851.) 

IX.  Errors  regarding  the  Civil  Power  of  the  Sovereign  Pontiff. 

75.  The  children  of  the  Christian  and  Catholic  Church  are  not  agreed 
upon  the  compatibility  of  the  temporal  with  the  spiritual  power.  (Letter 
Apostolic  "Ad  Apostolicae,"  22d  August,  1851.) 

76.  The  abohtion  of  the  temporal  power,  of  which  the  Apostolic  See  is 
possessed,  would  contribute  in  the  greatest  degree  to  the  liberty  and  pros- 
perity of  the  Church.     (Allocution  "Quibus  quantisqne,"  20th  April,  1849.) 

N.B. — Besides  these  errors,  explicitly  noted,  many  others  are  impliedly  re- 
buked by  the  proposed  and  asserted  doctrine,  which  all  Catholics  are  bound 
most  firmly  to  hold,  touching  the  temporal  Sovereignty  of  the  Roman  Pon- 
tiff. These  doctrines  are  clearly  stated  in  the  Allocutions  "Quibus  quan- 
tisqne," 20th  April,  1849,  and  "Si  semper  antea,"  20th  May,  1850;  Apos- 
toHc  Letter  "Quum  Catholica  Ecclesia,"  26th  March,  1860;  Allocutions — 
"Novos,"28th  September,  1860;  "  Jamdudum,"  18th  March,  1861;  and 
"  Maxima  quidem,"  9th  June,  1862. 

X.  Errors  having  Reference  to  Modern  Liberalism. 
11.  In  the  present  day,  it  is  no  longer  expedient  that  the  Catholic  Religion 
shall  be  held  as  the  only  Religion  of  the  State,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  other 
modes  of  Worship.     (Allocution  "Nemo  vestrum,"  26th  July,  1855.) 


APPENDIX.  735 

78.  Whence  it  has  been  wisely  provided  by  law,  in  some  countries  called 
Catholic,  that  persons  coming  to  reside  therein  shall  enjoy  the  public  exercise 
of  their  own  worship.    (Allocution  "  Acerbissimum,"  27th  September,  1852.) 

79.  Moreover,  it  is  false  that  the  civil  liberty  of  every  mode  of  worship, 
and  the  full  power  given  to  all  of  overtly  and  publicly  manifesting  their  opin- 
ions and  their  ideas,  of  all  kinds  whatsoever,  conduce  more  easily  to  corrupt 
the  morals  and  minds  of  the  people,  and  to  the  propagation  of  the  pest  of  in- 
difFerentism.     (Allocution  "Nunquam  fore,"  15th  December,  1856.) 

80.  The  Roman  Pontiff  can  and  ought  to  reconcile  himself  to,  and  agree 
with,  progress,  liberalism,  and  civilization  as  lately  introduced.  (Allocution 
"  Jamdudum  cernimus,"  18th  March,  1861.) — Pastoral  Letter  of  Archbishop 
Spalding,  etc.,  etc. 


INDEX. 


A. 

Abelard  an  early  reformer,  525. 

Absolute  power  justified  by  precedent, 
123,  405. 

Absolving  sins,  191. 

Adrian  I.,  Pope,  sets  up  pretended  dona- 
tion of  Constantiue,  253  ;  pretensions 
of,  345,  346 ;  absolves  the  Franks  from 
crime,  34T  ;  advocates  image- worship, 
634. 

II.,  Pope,  interferes  with  temporal 

affairs,  393 ;  is  forced  to  retract,  396 ; 
his  relations  to  the  emperor,  634. 

IV.,  Pope,  grants  Ireland  to  the  king 

of  England,  410,  413,  557,  598  ;  his  execu- 
tion of  Arnold  of  Brescia,  413,  557. 

Agapetus,  Pope,  burns  the  bull  of  Boni- 
face II.,  275. 

Agatho,  Pope,  633. 

Albigenses,  the,  416;  war  upon  them  by 
Innocent  III.,  418,  435;  excommuni- 
cated, 486. 

Alexander,  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  293 ; 
first  called  pope,  296. 

1.,  Pope,  376. 

II.,  Pope,  401 ;  gives  England  to  Wil- 
liam of  Normandy,  441,  449. 

III.,  Pope,  398,  413  ;    ambition   and 

character  of,  414 ;  triumph  of,  over  Em- 
peror Frederick  Barbarossa,  415 ;  intro- 
duces papal  constitutions,  637. 

IV.,  Pope,  dispenses  the  oath  of  the 

Kingof  England,  468. 

v.,  Pope,  poisoned,  476;  elected  by 

the  Council  of  Pisa,  530. 

VI.,  Pope,  the  model  of  Machiavelli's 

•'  Prince,"  242 ;  America  discovered  dur- 
ing his  pontificate,  600. 

Allegiance,  right  to  dissolve,  asserted, 
368,  402  ;  oath  of,  in  the  United  States, 
563,  572 ;  the  English  people  released 


from  their  allegiance  to  John,  446,  456 ; 
also  to  Henry  VIII.,  497. 

Alphonso,  King  of  Arragon,  551. 

Alva,  Duke  of,  688. 

Ambiguity,  Jesuit  theory  of,  606. 

American  hierarchy,  bound  by  oath  to  de- 
fend the  royalties  of  the  pope,  42  ;  and 
to  persecute  heretics,  ib. ;  seek  to  intro- 
duce canon  laws  into  the  United  States, 
46 ;  support  the  Encyclical  and  Syllabus 
of  Pius  IX.,  51 ;  their  disobedience  to 
State  laws,  44 ;  place  the  Church  above 
the  State,  42. 

— -  institution's,  effect  of  papal  preten- 
sions upon  them,  168 ;  held  to  be  no 
government  at  all,  172 ;  exertions  to 
make  them  papal,  173. 

papists,   justify    rebellion    against 

German  laws,  181 ;  invoke  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  against  Italy, 
111. 

Anacletus,  Pope,  his  forged  epistles,  375. 

Anicetus,  Pope,  agrees  with  Polycarp 
about  the  festival  of  Easter,  373^;  his 
forged  epistles,  376. 

Anselm,  525. 

Anterus,  Pope,  his  forged  epistles,  381. 

Antonelli,  Cardinal,  character  of,  230 ;  his 
letter  to  the  papal  nuncio  at  Paris,  451, 
595,  597. 

Apostles,  the,  all  equal  in  performing 
miracles,  258 ;  bad  no  temporal  power, 
261,  357. 

Aquinas,  Thomas,  on  absolution,  191. 

Arian  controversy,  its  origin,  293  ;  its  im- 
mediate effect,  295. 

Arianism,  289  ;  condemned  at  Council  of 
Nice,  408. 

Arins,  tried  by  an  African  Council,  293; 
he  did  not  appeal  to  Rome,  294. 

Armenian  Christians,  letter  to  them  by 
the  presest  pope,  133. 


47 


V38 


INDEX. 


Arnold  of  Brescia,  an  early  reformer,  413, 
625, 556. 

Artemoutes,  an  early  sect,  296. 

Asiatic  churches,  originally  all  equal,  259. 

Astolphus,  King  of  Lombardy,  326,  329, 
341,  344. 

Athauasius  upon  the  presidency  of  the 
Council  of  Nice,  301. 

Atheism,  political,  what  it  is  alleged  to 
be,  166. 

Augustine,  papal  missionary  to  Britain, 
finds  Christians  in  Kent,  429;  he 
threatens  them  with  persecution,  430. 

Aurelian,  Emperor,  his  decision,  247. 

Austria  sets  aside  papal  concordat,  26. 

Avignon,  the  popes  at,  475;  their  in- 
trigues while  there,  526. 

B. 

Badbey,  Thomas,  put  to  death,  473. 

Balmez,  Jesuit  author,  575  ;  on  obedience 
to  civil  power,  576,  577 ;  the  State  to  be 
tried  by  divine  law,  579;  on  govern- 
ments de  jure  and  de  facto,  580 ;  the 
United  States  a  de  facto  and  illegitimate 
govei'nment,  581, 

Baltimore,  Lord,  the  elder,  675-677. 

,  the  younger,  680 ;  his"  usurpations  in 

Maryland,  681 ;  requires  the  oath  of  al- 
legiance to  himself,  683;  grants  spe- 
cial favors  to  papists,  684. 

Balitmore,  National  Council  of,  in  1866, 
43 ;  its  pastoral  letter,  44 ;  its  claim  of 
authority,  46 ;  joy  it  afforded  the  pope, 
61;  notes  on  it,  608  ;  Appendix  B,  718. 

Balthasar  Costa,  Pope  John  XXIIL,  531. 

Bangor,  monks  of,  murdered,  432. 

Baptized,  all  who  are,  subject  to  the  pope, 
611,  612. 

Barbarossa,  Frederick,  Emperor,  submits 
to  the  pope,  124 ;  threatened  by  the  pope, 
413 ;  excommunicated,  and  his  subjects 
released  from  their  allegiance,  414 ;  the 
result  of  his  contest  with  the  pope,  ib. ; 
his  humiliation,  415. 

Barnabas  and  Paul,  apostles,  go  to  the 
heathen,  426. 

Baronius,  his  opinion  of  Boniface  VI., 
370;  on  the  False  Decretals,  391;  on 
Christianity  in  Britain,  425. 

Barons,  the,  in  England,  455 ;  informed  of 
old  charter  by  Cardinal  Langton,  458 ; 
they  resort  to  arms,  459 ;  obtain  Magna 
Charta,  460 ;  are  excommunicated,  462, 
469 ;  attacked  at  Dover  Castle,  468 ;  how 
they  were  persecuted,  469;  they  were 


Boman  Catholics,  470 ;  they  would  not 
concede  that  the  pope  was  the  Church, 
483. 

Basel,  Council  of,  645 ;  it  was  ecumenical, 
653 ;  deposes  one  pope  and  elects  an- 
other, 654. 

Bavaria  resists  decree  of  infallibility, 
26. 

Becket,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  414. 

Bede,  the  Venerable,  on  the  war  between 
the  Saxons  and  Britons,  428. 

Belief,  papal,  includes  past,  present,  and 
future,  159. 

Belisarius,  enters  Rome,  276 ;  makes  Vi- 
gilius  pope,  277. 

Bellarmine,  author  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
indirect  power,  595,  597. 

Bellerini  justifies  coercive  power,  154. 

Benedict  IX.,  Pope,  399. 

XII.,  Pope,  a  heretic,  528. 

XIII.,  Pope,  476,  526,  528 ;  convicted 

of  heresy  by  the  Council  of  Pisa,  529; 
condemned  by  the  Council  of  Constance, 
532 ;  his  claim  to  infallibility,  538. 

XIV.,  Pope,  condemns  freemasonry, 

201, 207. 

Beziers,  city  of,  destroyed  by  order  of  the 
pope,  418. 

Bible,  not  the  rule  of  papal  faith,  77 ;  not 
to  be  read  without  annotati(m8,  78 ;  the 
Protestant,  denounced  as  false,  79 ;  not 
to  be  published  and  read  in  the  vul- 
gar tongue,  205;  priests  demand  that 
it  should  not  be  read  in  England,  504. 

Bible  societies  condemned,  78,  205. 

Bishop's  oath,  what  it  requires,  42 ;  its 
form.  Appendix  A,  717. 

Bohemians,  aroused  at  death  of  IIuss  and 
Jerome,  549 ;  persecution  of  them,  552, 
553. 

Bologna  given  by  Pepin  to  the  pope,  330. 

Book  mutilated  at  Rome,  241. 

Boniface  II.,  Pope,  275. 

IV.,  Pope,  to  the  Kiug  of  England, 

123. 

VI.,  Pope,  370. 

VIII.,  Pope,  his  bull  Unam  Sanctam, 

222, 224, 421, 527 ;  his  character  and  opin- 
ions, 223;  employs  force,  419;  claims 
both  spiritual  and  temporal  supremacy, 
420  ;  his  addition  to  the  canon  law,  421 ; 
his  quarrel  with  Philip,  526. 

IX.,  Pope,  ih. 

Bonrges,  Council  of,  660. 

Britain,  how  governed  before  Christ,  424; 
when  Christianity  reached  there,  425. 


INDEX. 


1S9 


Brittany,  King  of,  dictated  by  the  pope, 
366. 

Britous,  native,  their  Christianity,  423; 
their  war  with  the  Saxons,  428;  the 
union  between  them  and  the  Saxons, 
437. 

Brownson,  Dr.  O.  A.,  on  authority  and 
liberty,  30;  his  intolerance,  31;  claims 
that  the  people  must  have  a  master,  33  ; 
defends  the  Spanish  Inquisition,  93 ;  on 
union  of  Church  and  State,  ib. ;  on  the 
superiority  of  the  Middle  Ages,  95 ;  de- 
nounces the  Reformation,  96 ;  justifies 
resort  to  force,  451,  452 ;  treats  the  State 
as  inferior  to  the  Church,  706. 


Caius,  Pope,  forgeries  in  his  name,  384. 

Calistus,  Pope,  forgeries  in  his  name,  378. 

Calixtus  II.,  Pope,  410. 

Calvert,  Leonard,  in  Virginia,  680. 

Canon  laws,  carried  to  France  by  Char- 
lemagne, 349 ;  compiled  by  Dionysius, 
372  ;  are  the  laws  of  the  Church,  604. 

Cardinals,  power  of,  to  call  a  council,  529  ; 
college  of,  first  established,  671. 

Carlegion,  Battle  of,  434. 

Catechism,  Roman,  denies  the  pope's  in- 
fallibility, 627. 

Catholic,  Roman,  system  of  government, 
44,45;  the  Church  a  Christian  Church,  58. 

Catholics,  Roman,  can  not  be  liberal  to 
Protestants,  235. 

Cecilia,  St.,  pretended  discovery  of  her  re- 
mains, 361. 

Celestine  I.,  Pope,  a  heretic,  681. 

Celibacy  introduced  into  England,  443, 

Chalcedon,  Council  of,  408 ;  on  the  tem- 
poral power,  237,  632. 

Chambord,  Count  de,  king  by  divine 
right,  184. 

Charlemagne,  Emperor,  333,  345  ;  his  Ca- 
pitularies, 346 ;  he  adds  to  the  papal  do- 
minions, 347 ;  is  made  emperor  by  the 
pope,  348;  he  confirms  the  donation  of 
Pepin,  349 ;  he  carries  the  canon  laws 
to  France,  ib.;  the  extent  of  his  dona- 
tion to  the  pope,  350 ;  he  dictates  the 
"Filioque"  in  the  creed,  352. 

Charles  V.,  Emperor,  509  ;  his  league  with 
Paul  III.  against  heresy,  511. 

VII.  of  France,  661. 

the  Bald,  394,  395. 

Childeric  III.,  King  of  France,  321,  322. 

Christian  commonwealth,  with  the  pope 
as  sovereign,  163. 


Christianity,  it  begins  at  Jerusalem,  256 ; 
introduced  into  Gaul  and  Britain,  424. 

Church,  Roman  Catholic,  demands  that  it 
shall  govern  its  property  by  the  canon 
law,  47 ;  exclusive  and  aggressive,  70 ;  in- 
tolerant, 80;  the  enemy  of  Protestant- 
ism, 71 ;  it  is  fully  protected  in  the  Uni- 
ted States,  ib. ;  its  influence  united  with 
the  Stale,  61,  354 ;  claims  to  be  above 
the  State,  165;  condemns  separation 
from  the  State,  218 ;  insists  on  union  of 
Church  and  State,  282,  283,  286  ;  former- 
ly enslaved  at  Rome,  398 ;  its  condition 
in  England  under  Henry  VIII.,  498. 

Churches,  the  apostolic,  independent  of 
each  other,  140,  281,  283,  296. 

Clement  I.,  Pope,  373;  his  forged  epistles, 
375 ;  his  testimony  as  to  Paul,  424, 

III.  made  anti  -  pope  by  Henry  IV., 

406. 

IV.,  Pope,  persecutes  the  English 

barons,  469. 

V,,  Pope,  swears  to  blot  out  the  mem- 
ory of  Boniface  VIII,,  527,  639;  revokes 
his  bull  Unam  Sanctum,  527. 

VI,,  Pope,  528. 

VII.,  Pope,  526. 

VIII.,  Pope,  authorizes  the  mutila- 
tion of  books,  241 ;  elected  successor  to 
Benedict  XIII.,  476. 

XL,  Pope,  his  bull  Unigenitus,  451. 

XII.,  Pope,  condemns  freemasonry, 

201 :  the  enemy  of  democratic  ideas, 
206. 

XIV,,  Pope,  suppresses  the  Jesuits, 

98 ;  his  bull  for  that  purpose,  99 ;  he  is 
supposed  to  have  been  poisoned  by 
them,  101. 

Clemingis  upon  character  of  prelates  at 
the  Council  of  Constance,  542. 

Clergy,  Roman,  must  not  be  subject  to 
the  secular  power,  145;  their  union  with 
Constantine,  287 ;  exempted  from  civil 
punishment  by  Charlemagne,  346 ;  they 
overrun  England,  364 ;  the  reduced  con- 
diticm  of  that  country,  466. 

Clovis  the  Great,  321. 

Coercive  power,  justified  as  a  personal 
right,  154 ;  claimed  by  popes,  488,  524, 
601, 613. 

Colonnas,  the  family  of  the,  420. 

Columbus,  Christopher,  591. 

Commons,  House  of,  its  origin,  467. 

Confessional,  dangerous  influence  of  the, 
189 ;  public,  in  early  times,  ib. ;  made  se- 
cret by  iico  L,  190 ;  its  immorality,  192. 


740 


INDEX. 


"Congregation  of  the  ludex"  at  Rome, 
91. 

Conscieuce,  liberty  of,  Protestant  and  pa- 
pal ideas  of,  35. 

Consolidation  of  papists  to  defend  the 
pope,  187. 

Constance,  Council  of,  burns  John  Huss, 
476;  called  by  John  XXIII.,  531 ;  it  rec- 
ognizes the  Council  of  Pisa,  ib.;  re- 
quires resignation  of  rival  popes,  532  ; 
its  claim  of  infallibility,  538;  its  corrup- 
tions, 541 ;  elects  Martin  V.  pope,  550, 
643. 

Constantine,  first  to  unite  Church  and 
State,  140,  242;  his  entry  into  Rome, 
250 ;  his  relations  to  the  Council  of  Nice, 
250,  286,  297,  304 ;  he  never  was  a  Roman 
Catholic,  251,  283,  286 ;  what  he  did  for 
the  Church,  251,  287 ;  holds  the  Church 
in  obedience,  252 ;  separates  the  clergy 
from  temporal  affairs,  ib. ;  the  origin  of 
his  pretended  donation,  253;  he  did  not 
reside  at  Rome,  254;  is  a  usurper  and 
a  pagan  emperor,  284 ;  he  advances  the 
clergy  with  temporal  views,  286 ;  is  an 
Arian  and  heretic,  287 ;  his  opinion  of 
the  Ariau  controversy,  289,  294 ;  main- 
tains the  Protestant  idea  of  unity 
among  Christians,  294 ;  he  dictates  the 
creed  at  Nice,  305 ;  governs  the  Council 
of  Nice,  ib. ;  introduces  the  word  con- 
substantial,  306 ;  shields  the  clergy  from 
exposure,  308 ;  approves  the  decrees  of 
the  Council,  309 ;  claims  divine  right, 
479. 

Constantine  Copronymus,  Emperor,  330, 
336 ;  demands  territory  taken  by  Pepin 
from  the  Lombards,  337 ;  calls  a  coun- 
cil, 634. 

Constantinople,  First  Council  of,  408,  630. 

,  Second  Council  of,  237,  408,  633. 

,  Third  Council  of,  408,  633. 

,  Fourth  Council  of,  409,  634. 

Constitution  of  the  United  States,  oppo- 
sition to  the  freedom  it  sets  forth,  210. 

of  Lothaire  at  Rome,  363. 

Cornelius,  Pope,  forgeries  in  his  name, 
384. 

Corruption  at  Rome,  in  electing  a  pope, 
276;  it  becomes  universal,  371. 

Council  at  Rome,  late,  its  first  dogmatic 
constitution,  144;  earliest  held  there, 
374. 

Councils,  ecumenical,  first,  289  ;  they  con- 
demn and  depose  popes,  476 ;  the  early 
ones  all  Greek,  629  ;  the  Latin  ones,  636. 


Crime  redeemed  by  taxes,  209. 

Cross  greater  than  the  sword,  125. 

Cyprian  upon  Church  unity,  259;  he  re- 
bukes ambitious  popes,  282;  his  idea 
of  the  independence  of  bishops,  288. 


Damasus,  Pope,  forgeries  in  his  name,  384. 

Decretals,  the  Gratian,  411 ;  what  they 
claim,  412. 

,  the  False,  372,  387,  889,  390,  397. 

De'  Medici,  the  family  of,  664. 

Dens,  Peter,  what  he  teaches,  595, 605, 606. 

Diouysius,  Pope,  282;  forgeries  in  his 
name,  384. 

Direct  and  indirect  power,  595. 

Disloyalty  encouraged,  181. 

Divine  power  claimed  by  Pius  IX.,  162, 
449,  599 ;  by  Gregory  VIL,  403 ;  by  In- 
nocent III.,  447. 

Divine  right  to  govern  to  be  decided  by 
the  pope,  184. 

Dolliuger,  Dr.,  on  donation  of  Constan- 
tine, 253. 

Dover  Castle,  barons  attacked  in,  468. 

Du  Pin,  on  the  eighteenth  canon  of  Nice, 
311 ;  on  the  number  of  Nicene  canons, 
316. 

E. 

Easter,  controversy  about  the  festival  ofi 
373. 

Ebionites,  an  early  sect,  296. 

Educational  institutions,  papal,  20. 

Edward  L,  King  of  England,  confirms 
Magna  Charta,  470 ;  released  from  his 
oath  by  the  pope,  ib. 

II.,  King  of  England,  confirms  Mag- 
na Charta,  471. 

III.,   King    of   England,  confirms 

Magna  Charta,  471. 

IV.,  King  of  England,  474. 

VI.,  King  of  England,  the   reforms 

during  his  reign,  504;  present  Church 
of  England  founded  by  him,  ib. ;  he  is 
the  first  Protestant  king,  505 ;  does  not 
persecute  the  papists,  ib. ;  assigns  the 
crown  to  Lady  Jane  Grey,  506. 

Eleutherus,  Pope,  his  forged  epistles,  376. 

Elizabeth,  Queen  of  England,  506;  she 
persecutes  the  papists,  517  ;  learns  per- 
secution from  the  Lateran  decree,  518  ; 
persecutes  Protestants  also,  ib.;  the 
kind  of  church  she  desires  to  establish, 
520 ;  her  Protestantism  imperial  and 
undeveloped,  521 ;  state  of  religion  in 
her  time,  ib. 


INDEX. 


741 


Encyclical  of  Pins  IX.,  198;  it  condemns 
modern  ideas  and  progress,  199,  204; 
also  liberty  of  conscience,  ib. ;  and  of 
speech,  ib. ;  and  of  the  press,  ib. ;  asserts 
that  kingdoms  rest  on  the  Church,  209 ; 
directly  in  conflict  with  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States,  209.  See  Ap- 
pendix C. 

Encyclopedists,  103. 

England,  Peter -pence  introduced  into, 
367,  436 ;  ecclesiastical  law  inti'oduced 
into,  486;  clergy  freed  from  civil  law, 
ib.;  origin  of  nationality,  439;  crown 
of,  surrendered  to  the  pope  by  John, 
457;  foreign  troops  sent  to  subjugate 
it  to  the  pope,  460 ;  clergy  of,  claimed 
exemption  from  civil  laws,  466,  474; 
Church  in,  is  Roman  Catholic  in  faith 
under  Henry  VIII.,  498;  insolence  of 
priests  and  monks,  504. 

,  Right  Rev.  John,  his  controversy 

with  Mr.  Fuller,  491 ;   the  nature  and 
obligation  of  an  oath,  568,  569. 

Ephesus,  Council  of,  and  the  temporal 
power,  237;  it  condemns  Nestorius, 
408,  631. 

Equivocation,  Jesuit  theory  of,  606. 

Eihelbert,  King  of  East  Angles,  pardoned 
by  the  pope  for  murder,  435. 

Ethelwolf,  King  of  England,  grants  Pe- 
ter-pence to  the  pope,  367. 

Eugenius  II.,  Pope,  363. 

IV.,  Pope,  against  keeping  faith  with 

heretics,  560 ;  his  war  upon  the  Church, 
646. 

Eunomians  an  early  sect,  296. 

Eusebius,  the  historian,  his  account  of 
the  early  clergy,  282,  287 ;  on  the  early 
growth  of  Christianity,  284 ;  on  the  bap- 
tism of  Constantine,  286 ;  his  omis- 
sions, 292  ;  on  the  Council  of  Nice,  297 ; 
on  the  pope's  legates  at  Nice,  299 ;  on 
the  approval  of  the  Nicene  decrees  by 
Constantine,  309;  on  Christianity  in 
Great  Britain,  425. 

,  Pope,  forgeries  in  his  name,  384. 

Eutyches,  heresy  of,  340. 

Eutychian,  Pope,  forgeries  in  his  name, 
384. 

Evaristus,  Pope,  376. 

Ex  cathedra,  what  it  means,  186. 

Excommunication,  power  of,  perverted, 
353,  466. 

F. 

Fabianus,  Pope,  forgeries  in  his  name, 
381, 


Faith,  profession  of,  by  Pius  IV.  and  Pius 
IX.,  75  ;  not  kept  with  heretics,  515,  544. 

Falsehoods  of  Jesuits,  290. 

Felix  I.,  Pope,  forgeries  in  his  name,  384. 

II.,  Pope,  and  the  Emperor  Zeno, 

271. 

v..  Pope,  elected  by  Council  of  Basel, 

654. 

Ferrara,  given  by  Pepin  to  the  pope,  330 ; 
the  Council  held  there,  648 ;  misquota- 
tion of  its  canons,  657. 

'•  Filioque  "  dictated  by  Charlemagne,  352. 

Fleury  on  the  False  Decretals,  391. 

Florence,  Council  of,  528,  641,  645,  655. 

Foreigners  as  priests  and  educators,  23, 
93. 

Formosus,  Pope,  exhumed  and  mutilated 
by  Stephen  VII.,  370. 

Fortunatus  Ulmus,  on  the  degradation  of 
Frederick  Barbarossa,  415. 

France  withdraws  support  from  the  pa- 
pacy, 26 ;  betrayed  by  Napoleon  III., 
120 ;  monarchy  established  there,  321 ; 
its  Merovingian  kings,  ib.;  it  denies 
the  temporal  power  of  the  pope,  420 ; 
England  granted  to  it  by  Innocent  III., 
456 ;  a  model  papal  state,  697. 

Franco-Prussian  war,  177. 

Fredet,  Dr.,  his  testimony,  324,  326,  327, 
333. 

Freedom  of  the  Church,  what  it  means, 
94. 

of  thought  and  religion  condemned, 

85,  208,  214. 

Freemasonry,  condemned,  89,  201;  for- 
merly punished  with  death,  206. 

Free  State,  what  it  means,  61. 

French  Church,  660. 

Friars,  Gray,  burned  by  John  XXII.,  527. 

Fuller,  Rev.  Richard,  his  controversy  with 
Bishop  England,  491. 

G. 

Galileo  persecuted,  91,  621. 

Gallican  Christians,  392,  397. 

Gelasius  Cyzicenus,  his  falsehood  about 

the  Council  of  Nice,  303. 
German  clergy,  393. 
Germany,  laws  of,  defied  by  Pius  IX.,  170 ; 

effect  of  this  in  the  United  States,  171 ; 

the  same  questions  in  both  countries, 

176, 179;  disloyalty  justified  by  Ameri-  . 

can  papists,  181 ;  its  condition  under 

the  Saxon  and  Salique  emperors,  399 ; 

the  Reformation  in,  495. 
Gildas  the  Wise,  his  "  History,"  426. 


742 


INDEX, 


Government,  science  of,  what  it  involves, 
63 ;  of  the  Papal  States,  229 ;  not  pater- 
nal, 230  ;  an  ecclesiastical  benefice,  231 ; 
the  people  possessed  of  no  civil  rights, 
ib. ;  purely  ecclesiastical,  232. 

of  the  United  States,  denounced  as 

no  Government,  172 ;  as  de  facto  and  il- 
legitimate, 581 ;  to  be  obeyed  from  pol- 
icy, not  duty,  582 ;  it  does  not  interfere 
with  religion,  58T. 

Governments,  papal,  they  alone  legiti- 
mate, 583. 

,  those  heretical  to  be  overthrown, 

454 ;  not  to  be  obeyed,  601. 

Greek  Christians  and  Innocent  III.,  417. 

councils,  629 ;  attempt  at  union  with 

them,  651. 

Gregory  I.,  Pope,  278,  401. 

III.,  Pope,  596. 

IV.,  Pope,  364 ;  he  excites  revolt  in 

France,  365. 

v..  Pope,  398. 

VII,,  Pope,  398 ;  his  ambition,  400 ; 

claims  the  right  to  dispose  of  king- 
doms, 401 ;  his  quarrel  with  Philip,  ib. ; 
his  bull  excommunicating  Henry  IV., 
and  releasing  his  subjects  from  their  al- 
legiance, 402 ;  his  claim  of  divine  pow- 
er, 403 ;  he  exacts  homage  from  kings, 
404 ;  his  letter  to  the  Bishop  of  Metz, 
ib.;  decree  in  favor  of  Rudolph,  405; 
his  death,  406;  his  claim  of  infallibility, 
407 ;  his  character,  409 ;  his  effort  to  in- 
troduce celibacy,  444. 

IX.,  Pope,  421,  514 ;  he  declares  that 

oaths  with  heretics  are  not  binding, 
515. 

X.,  Pope,  attempts  union  with  the 

Greeks,  639. 

XL,  Pope,  475 ;  makes  war  upon  the 

Vaudois,  ib.;  orders  Wycliffe  to  be  tort- 
ured, ib.;  his  pontificate,  528. 

XII.,  Pope,  476,  528;   convicted  of 

heresy  and  perjury  by  the  Council  of 
Pisa,  529 ;  he  calls  a  rival  council,  530 ; 
is  condemned  by  the  Council  of  Con- 
stance, 532;  his  claim  to  infallibility, 
538. 

XV.,  Pope,  686 ;  his  persecutions,  687. 

XVI.,  Pope,  33  ;  his  bull  against  Bi- 
ble societies,  78 ;  hopes  to  establish  the 
papacy  in  the  United  States,  98  ;  he  em- 
ploys the  Jesuits  in  the  United  States, 
105;  condemns  publication  and  reading 
of  the  Scriptures,  205 ;  also  the  freedom 
of  conscience  and  opinion,  206. 


Harold  the  lawful  King  of  England,  440. 

Henry  I.,  King  of  England,  his  old  char- 
ter, 458. 

II.,  King  of  England,  submits  to  the 

pope,  124 ;  Ireland  granted  to  him  by 
the  pope,  557. 

III.,  King  of  England,  464 ;  renews 

the  grant  of  the  crown  to  the  pope, 
465. 

IV.,  King  of  England,  473. 

v.,  King  of  England,  473. 

VIII.,  King  of  England,  abolishes 

Peter -pence,  436;  defends  the  pope 
against  Luther,  495 ;  never  was  a  Prot- 
estant, 496 ;  always  maintains  the  Ro- 
man Catholic  faith,  497,  498 ;  persecutes 
both  Reformers  and  Protestants,  499; 
he  learns  persecution  from  Rome,  500 ; 
his  aid  to  Romanism,  501 ;  his  aid  to 
Protestantism,  502. 

IIL,  Emperor,  399;  made  Leo  IX. 

pope,  400. 

IV.,  Emperor,  401,  406. 

Heresies,  early,  289. 

Heresy,  it  is  to  deny  that  the  Church  is 
independent  of  the  State,  202. 

Heretics,  persecuted  by  Leo  I.,  269 ;  their 
punishment,  453,  511,  514,  612 ;  burned 
in  England,  473 ;  faith  not  to  be  kept 
with  them,  515,  544, 560 ;  how  punished 
in  France,  698. 

Hierarchical  subordination  decreed,  146. 

Hierarchy,  bound  to  defend  the  royalties 
of  the  pope,  42 ;  to  persecute  heretics, 
ib. ;  their  literature,  73 ;  they  arraign 
Protestantism  as  infidelity,  74. 

Higinus,  Pope,  376. 

Hildebrand,  Pope  Gregory  VII.,  400. 

Hincmar,  Archbishop,  his  letter  to  Adrian 
II.,  395. 

History  to  be  taught  only  by  the  pope, 
156. 

Holy  Empire  to  be  established,  221. 

Honorius,  Pope,  anathematized  for  here- 
sy, 149,  633. 

Hooper,  Bishop,  his  martyrdom,  513. 

Hosius,  Bishop  of  Cordova,  291 ;  messen- 
ger of  Constantine,  296;  not  the  legate 
of  the  pope  at  the  Council  of  Nice,  299, 
302. 

Hughes,  Archbishop,  his  illiberality,  7. 

Hungary,  King  of,  absolved  from  his  oath, 
560. 

Huss,  John,  burned  by  Council  of  Con- 


INDEX. 


743 


stance,  476,  543 ;  had  safe-conduct  from 
the  emperor,  543;  his  arrest,  trial,  and 
execution,  54G,  547. 
Hussites   banished   from   Moravia,  550; 
how  persecuted,  652. 

I. 

Ignatius,  does  not  maintain  Roman  su- 
premacy, 243 ;  his  epistles  to  several 
churches,  244;  denied  the  patrimony 
of  Peter,  245. 

Images,  worship  of,  328,  360. 

Index  Expurgatoriu.%  at  Rome,  91. 

Indulgences  sold  at  Rome,  475. 

Infallibility  of  the  pope,  its  ready  adop- 
tion In  the  United  States,  24 ;  not  a  new 
doctrine  when  attached  to  the  Church, 
37 ;  decreed  by  Vatican  Council,  41, 145 ; 
makes  the  pope  a  domestic  prince  in 
every  country,  131 ;  gives  him  jurisdic- 
tion over  both  morals  and  politics,  152 ; 
it  extends  to  pope,  priests,  and  lay- 
men, 155;  the  pope  alone  can  define  its 
extent,  157 ;  it  Is  claimed  by  Gregory 
VII.,  407 ;  why  it  is  decreed,  447 ;  the 
difficulties  in  the  way,  538;  it  was  for- 
merly denied,  616-621 ;  it  is  condemned 
by  the  Parliament  of  Paris,  622;  con- 
demned in  England  and  denied  by  Irish 
clergy,  624 ;  denied  by  the  Roman  cat- 
echism, 627 ;  condemned  by  American 
bishops  present  at  the  Council,  628. 

Innocent  II.,  Pope,  410. 

III.,  Pope,  398,  416;  his  claim  of  di- 
vine power,  417  ;  his  vacillation,  ib. ;  he 
tries  to  reduce  the  Greek  Christians  to 
obedience,  ib. ;  his  bull  against  the  Vau- 
dois,  418 ;  he  establishes  the  Inquisition, 
419;  his  efforts  to  subjugate  England, 
445;  he  releases  the  people  from  their 
allegiance,  446,  456,  561 ;  he  annuls  Mag- 
na Charta,  461 ;  makes  war  on  the  Al- 
bigenses,  486;  dispenses  with  the  laws, 
559 ;  dispenses  oaths,  561. 

VL,  Pope,  528. 

X.,  Pope,  023. 

Inquisition,  Roman,  established  by  Inno- 
cent III.,  419. 

,  Spanish,  justified,  81,  93. 

Intolerance  boasted  of  as  meritorious, 
80. 

Ireland  granted  by  Adrian  IV.  to  Henry 
II.,  King  of  England,  410, 413,  557. 

Irenaeus,  rebukes  ambitious  popes,  282, 
374 ;  on  Christianity  among  the  Celts, 
425. 


Irish  Church,  its  independence  of  Rome, 

557. 
clergy  deny  the  pope's  infallibility, 

624. 
Isadore  Mercator,  supposed  forger  of  the 

False  Decretals,  372. 
Issue  forced  by  the  Jesuits,  603. 
Italian  ecclesiastics  sent  to  England,  464. 
patriots  put  to  death  by  Pius  IX., 

234. 

J. 

Jackson,  Andrew,  on  foreign  influence, 
181. 

"Janus"  on  Gregory  VII.,  407. 

Jefferson,  Thomas,  on  religious  intoler- 
ance, 68. 

Jerome  of  Prague  burned  by  Council  of 
Constance,  543,  548. 

Jerusalem,  assembly  of  the  apostles  there, 
426;  the  "mother  Church"  planted 
there,  711. 

Jesuits,  as  educators  in  the  United  States, 
23;  expelled  from  Prussia,  Italy,  Ba- 
varia, Switzerland,  and  Guatemala,  ib. ; 
suppressed  by  Clement  XIV.,  98 ;  ex- 
pelled from  France,  Spain,  Portugal, 
and  Sicily,  99;  their  ambition  and 
wealth,  101 ;  denounced  by  Alexander 
of  Russia,  103;  incorporated  by  Paul 
III.,  ib. ;  re-established  by  Pius  VII., 
104;  the  order  not  religious,  107;  their 
.constitution  requires  absolute  obedi- 
ence and  submission,  108  ;  their  power 
in  Rome,  235 ;  their  perversion  of  his- 
tory, 290 :  their  doctrines,  605-608 ;  the 
order  in  Maryland,  685. 

Joan,  supposed  Popess,  366. 

Joanna  of  Naples  and  Urban  V,,476. 

John,  the  apostle,  goes  to  Asia  with  Pe- 
ter, 426. 

,  King  of  England,  how  treated  by 

Innocent  III.,  445 ;  his  subjects  released 
from  their  allegiance,  446,  456 ;  the  base 
surrender  of  his  crown  to  the  pope,  457 ; 
forced  by  the  barons  to  grant  Magna 
Charta,  460 ;  released  from  his  oath  by 
the  pope,  461 ;  his  oath  to  the  pope,  561. 

II.,  Pope,  buys  the  pontificate,  275. 

III.,  Pope,  entertains  appeals,  278. 

VIIL,  Pope,  398. 

XII.,  Pope,  399. 

XXII.,  Pope,  527. 

XXIII.,  Pope,  deposed  for  infamous 

crimes,  149,  476;  buys  the  pontificate, 
476;  calls  the  Council  of  Constance, 
531;  xjolates  his  oath,  533;   is  tried, 


744 


INDEX. 


convicted,  and  deposed  for  numerous 
offenses,  534,  535 ;  his  claim  to  infallibil- 
ity, 538. 

John  IV.,  of  Portugal,  691. 

Julius  L,  Pope,  forgeries  in  his  name,  384. 

II.,  Pope,  excommunicates   Henry 

VIII.,  and  releases  his  subjects  from 
their  allegiance,  497,  662. 

Justinian,  Emperor,  makes  Pelagius  I. 
pope,  2T8 ;  the  laws  of,  696. 

K. 

Kenrick,  Archbishop,  on  the  temporal 
power,  227;  he  differs  from  Pius  IX., 
228 ;  concedes  that  Peter  had  no  domin- 
ion, ib.;  gives  supernatural  power  to 
the  pope,  257 ;  considers  the  pretended 
donation  of  Constantine  as  fraudulent, 
262  ;  on  the  donation  of  Pepin,  332 ;  his 
misquotation  of  Hallam,  358. 

Kings  chosen  by  the  pope  by  divine  right, 
184. 

L. 

Lanfranc,  prior  of  Bee,  440. 

Langton,  Cardinal,  Archbishop  of  Can- 
terbury, 445 ;  notifies  the  barons  of  old 
charter,  458 ;  he  incurs  the  animosity 
of  the  pope,  459 ;  he  refuses  to  publish 
bull  excommunicating  the  barons,  462  ; 
his  suspension  in  consequence,  462. 

Lateran,  First  Council  of,  636. 

,  Second  Council  of,  636. 

,  Third  Council  of,  6.S6. 

,  Fourth  Council  of,  485;  its  canons 

dictated  by  Innocent  III.,  487 ;  the  third 
canon  makes  persecution  of  heretics 
a  duty,  488;  constitutions  against  the 
Church  treated  as  void,  638. 

,  Fifth  Council  of,  663. 

Latimer  burned,  513. 

Latin  councils,  beginning  of,  636. 

Laws  of  the  Church  must  prevail  over 
those  of  the  State,  42. 

of  the  United  States,  disobedience  to 

them  encouraged,  172. 

Laymen,  distinction  between,  and  the 
priesthood,  112;  they  are  obliged  to 
obey,  122  ;  are  made  infallible  by  obedi- 
ence, 155  ;  they  must  surrender  all  con- 
demned opinions,  159  ;  they  are  not  al- 
lowed to  define  the  faith,  703. 

Legate  sent  to  England  by  the  pope,  471. 

Le  Maistre,  his  defense  of  the  Spanish 
Inquisition,  82 ;  thinks  mankind  must 
be  bridled,  124. 

Leo  I.,  Pope,  makes  confession   secret. 


made  pope  by  the 
,  400. 


190,  376;  his  relations  to  the  Emperor 
Marcian,  263;  his  pontificate,  264;  he 
possesses  no  temporal  power,  265;  is 
great  and  ambitious,  266;  he  saves 
Rome  from  Attila  by  his  eloquence, 
267  ;  myths  connected  with  that  event, 
268 ;  can  not  save  Rome  from  Genseric, 
269 ;  he  persecutes  heretics,  ib. ;  causes 
the  death  of  Priscillian,  270. 

Leo  III.,  Pope,  347  ;  makes  Charlemagne 
emperor,  348,  596. 

IV.,  Pope,  366. 

v.,  Emperor,  360. 

IX.,  Pope,  398; 

Emperor  Henry  III 

X.,  Pope,  604. 

XII.,  Pope,  his  bull  against  Bible  so- 
cieties, 78;  he  condemns  freemasonry, 
201;  also  the  publication  and  reading 
of  the  Scriptures,  205 ;  also  freedom  of 
conscience,  208. 

Liberalism  condemned  by  Pius  IX.,  220. 

Liberius,  Pope,  373 ;  forgeries  in  his  name, 
384. 

Liberty  of  conscience  according  to  papal 
teaching,  35 ;  pioneers  of,  61 ;  condemn- 
ed by  Pius  IX.,  199 ;  what  it  was  in 
Maryland,  673;  that  of  the  people  con- 
sidered the  liberty  of  perdition,  200. 

Lingard,  on  Christianity  in  Britain,  428 ; 
on  divine  power  claimed  by  Innocent 
IIL,  447 ;  on  the  pope's  annulling  Mag- 
na Charta,  461. 

Linus,  Pope,  375. 

Llorente  on  the  enormities  of  the  Spanish 
Inquisition,  82. 

Lollards  in  England,  472 ;  their  separation 
from  the  Roman  Church,  473 ;  punished 
by  death,  ib. ;  their  desire  for  reform, 
483. 

Lombards,  they  occupy  part  of  Italy,  326. 

Lombardy,  contest  for  the  crown  of,  344. 

Lothaire,  sent  to  Rome,  362 ;  his  constitu- 
tion, 363. 

Louis  le  Debonnaire,  352,  362. 

the  Pious  submits  to  the  pope,  123. 

XL,  of  France,  661. 

XIII.,  of  France,  687. 

Loyola,  Ignatius,  his  followers  in  the  Uni- 
ted States,  22 ;  he  draws  the  Jesuit  con- 
stitution, 107 ;  canonized,  686. 

Lucius,  Pope,  forgeries  in  his  name,  384. 

III.,  Pope,  486. 

Luther  at  the  Diet  of  Worms,  126;  circu- 
lation of  his  tracts  prohibited  in  En- 
gland by  Henry  VIII.,  500. 


INDEX. 


746 


Lyons,  First  Council  of,  639 ;  Second  Coun- 
cil of,  ib. 


M. 


Macedonians,  an  early  sect,  296 ;  their  her- 
esy, 340, 

Machiavelli,  Pope  Alexander  VI.  the  mod- 
el of  his  "  Prince,"  241, 

Madison,  James,  on  religious  intolerance, 
68, 

Magna  Charta,  65,  419,  460 ;  annulled  by 
the  pope,  461 ;  confirmed  by  kings,  471 ; 
its  principles,  481,  673. 

Manning,  Archbishop,  his  pastoral  letter, 
146 ;  his  definition  of  infallibility,  147 ; 
it  gives  the  pope  all  the  power  he  may 
claim  over  temporals,  148  ;  makes  him 
the  Church,  149;  he  justifies  the  Sylla- 
bus, 157 ;  he  claims  that  the  Church  is 
its  own  evidence,  202. 

Marcellinus,  Pope,  accused  of  idolatry, 
283 ;  forgeries  in  his  name,  384 ;  his  het- 
erodoxy, 388. 

Marcellus  I.,  Pope,  forgeries  in  his  name, 
384. 

Marchetti  on  the  False  Decretals,  391. 

Marcian,  Emperor,  and  Pope  Leo  I.,  ^63, 

Marcus,  Pope,  forgeries  in  his  name,  384. 

Martel,  Charles,  322. 

Martin  I.,  Pope,  376. 

v.,  Pope,  476 ;  elected  by  Council  of 

Constance,  550 ;  his  ambition  and  per- 
fidy, 551 ;  he  deposes  Joanna  of  Naples, 
ib. ;  his  command  to  desolate  Bohemia, 
552,  553 ;  he  becomes  sole  pope,  552,  641, 
643,  046. 

Mary,  Queen  of  England,  506 ;  how  pro- 
claimed queen,  507;  promises  not  to  in- 
terfere with  religion,  ib. ;  violates  her 
promise,  508 ;  causes  Lady  Jane  Grey  to 
be  put  to  death,  509  ;  her  persecutions, 
ib. ;  she  carries  out  the  league  between 
Charles  V.  and  the  pope,  513 ;  her  perse- 
cutions approved  at  Rome,  516. 

Maryland,  Colony  of,  677 ;  religious  toler- 
ation in,  678,  692,  693. 

Maxentius,  Emperor,  overthi'own  by  Con- 
stant ine,  283. 

Maximilian  dupe  of  Napoleon  III.  and  the 
pope,  120. 

Melitians  an  early  sect,  296. 

Mental  restrictions,  Jesuit  theory  of,  605. 

Metz,  Synod  of,  392. 

,  Bishop  of,  letter  of  Gregory  VII.  to 

him,  404. 


Mexico,  object  of  the  attempt  to  seize, 
119. 

Milchiades,  Pope,  283. 

Milman,  Dean,  on  the  forged  donation  of 
Constantine,  253;  ou  the  False  Decre- 
tals, 390, 

Miracles,  all  the  apostles  had  power  to 
perform,  258  ;  are  now  performed  by  the 
"Mother  of  God,"  260. 

Monarchs  quoted  in  defense  of  monarchy, 
125. 

Monarchy,  absolute,  what  it  is,  65. 

,  ecclesiastical,  at  Rome,  353. 

Monothelite  heresy,  340. 

Montesquieu,  his  definition  of  a  free  state, 
61. 

Moravians,  550. 

Mortmain,  statutes  of,  in  the  United 
States,  47. 

Mosheim  on  the  False  Decretals,  389. 

Munich,  citizens  of,  denounce  infallibili- 
ty, 188. 

N. 

Napoleon  I.  and  Pope  Pius  VIL,  104. 

III.,  betrays  France,  120 ;  his  object 

in  making  war  on  Prussia,  177. 

Nationality  in  England,  its  origin,  439. 

Nations,  the,  their  condition  after  Con- 
stantine, 321. 

Natural  right  to  freedom,  64. 

Nestorius,  Patriarch  of  Constantinople, 
408, 631 ;  heresy  of,  340. 

Newman,  John  Henry,  his  definition  of 
faith,  187. 

Nice,  Council  of,  and  the  temporal  pow- 
er, 237  ;  called  by  Constantine,  250,  2S6, 
297 ;  First  Ecumenical  Council,  289 ;  Jes- 
uit falsification  of  history  in  reference 
to,  290 ;  the  legates  of  the  pope  not 
presiding  at,  300 ;  the  pope  sends  no  in- 
structions, 304 ;  the  angry  discussions 
there,  305  ;  Constantine  the  ruling  spirit 
there,  ib. ;  he  dictates  the  creed  of,  ib. ; 
he  approves  the  decrees  of,  309 ;  Jesuit 
perversion  of  the  eighteenth  canon, 
310;  it  recognizes  the  equality  of  the 
churches,  311 ;  introduction  of  false  can- 
ons, 315 ;  canons  forged  by  Pope  Zosi- 
mus,  317;  it  condemns  Arianism,  408. 

,  Second  Council  of,  408. 

Nicholas  I.,  Pope,  367;  his  claim  of  uni- 
versal dominion,  368;  he  introduces  the 
False  Decretals,  373,  391 ;  his  character, 
392. 

II,,  pope,  401. 


746 


INDEX. 


Nicholas  V.,  Pope,  527,  654. 
Northumberland,  Duke  of,  influences  Ed- 
ward VL,  506. 


Oaths,  obligation  of,  dispensed  by  the 
pope,  460,  480  ;  defined  by  Third  Later- 
an  Council,  508 ;  those  with  heretics  not 
binding,  515, 544, 560  ;  not  binding  when 
disadvantageous  to  the  Church,  560 ; 
their  nature  and  obligation,  566-570; 
when  not  binding,  571. 

Obedience,  to  the  pope,  75;  of  Jesuit 
priests  to  their  superiors  must  be  abso- 
lute, 108;  to  the  pope,  what  it  is,  143, 
159;  to  the  pope  may  be  exacted  by 
force,  453  ;  is  not  due  to  de  facto  govern- 
ments, 601. 

Offa,  King  of  West  Saxony,  establishes 
Peter-pence,  436  ;  introduces  ecclesias- 
tical law  into  England,  ib. 

Oldcastle,  Sir  John,  a  Lollard  leader,  474. 

"Old  Catholics,"  178. 

Otho  of  Saxony,  417. 

P. 

Papacy,  the,  its  supremacy  in  the  United 
States,  31 ;  its  defiance  of  the  State,  36  ; 
its  relation  to  civil  affairs,  40 ;  its  con- 
flict with  Protestantism,  121 ;  the  ene- 
my of  liberty,  127 ;  claimed  by  Jesuits 
to  be  the  soul  of  the  world,  141. 

Paris,  the  Faculty  of  Divinity  of,  condemn 
the  pope's  infallibility,  622,  623. 

Paris,  Matthew,  on  papal  iniquity,  417. 

Pascal  I.,  Pope,  360 ;  a  pretended  miracle 
by  him,  361 ;  his  persecution  of  priests, 
362. 

Pascal,  his  "  Provincial  Letters,"  607. 

Paul  I.,  Pope,  344. 

III.,  Pope,  incorporates  the  Jesuits, 

103;  as  cardinal,  defends  Henry  VIIL, 
498. 

v.,  Pope,  persecutes  Galileo,  92,  623. 

,  the  apostle,  preaches  in  the  West, 

424;  goes  to  the  heathen  with  Barna- 
bas, 426 ;  goes  to  Rome,  427. 

of  Samosata,  his  trial,  247. 

Pelagius  L,  Pope,  made  so  by  Justinian, 
278. 

Pentapolis  given  by  Pepin  to  the  pope, 
330. 

People  of  the  United  States  a  mere  mob, 
174;  have  no  power  to  enact  binding 
laws,  200. 

Pepin,  King  of  France,  322 ;  how  he  be- 


comes so,  323 ;  his  alliance  with  the 
pope,  325;  its  temporal  fruits,  326;  he 
seizes  territory  from  the  King  of  Lom- 
bardy  and  gives  it  to  the  pope,  330 ;  did 
he  make  a  "  grant  ?"  331 ;  its  invalidity, 
335;  what  he  gives  the  pope  inures  to 
the  empire,  337 ;  the  fruits  of  his  trea- 
son, 338;  he  does  not  give  Rome  to  the 
pope,  339,  350 ;  the  forged  letter  from 
Peter  to  him,  342 ;  he  marches  his  army 
to  Italy,  343 ;  his  death,  344 ;  extent  of 
his  donation  to  the  pope,  350. 

Persecution  of  heretics,  42,  269;  of  the 
British  Christians,  433 ;  papal,  ante- 
dates Protestantism,  483 ;  commanded 
by  the  canon  law,  488 ;  how  long  con- 
fined to  papists  in  England,  497  ;  under 
Mary,  509,  513  ;  the  origin  of  the  attacks 
on  Roman  Catholics,  514 ;  by  the  Jesu- 
its, 687  ;  dictated  by  the  papacy,  697. 

Peter,  the  apostle,  70;  civil  principality 
claimed  for  him,  162  ;  without  dominion 
or  royalty,  228 ;  his  primacy  asserted, 
237;  the  nature  of  his  patrimony,  243; 
primacy  not  claimed  by  him,  321 ;  he 
goes  to  Asia  Minor  with  John,  426. 

Peter-pence,  its  origin,  347 ;  first  allowed 
in  England,  367,  436;  converted  into  a 
tribute,  465. 

Philip,  King  of  France,  401,  456. 

,  King  of  Spain,  married  to  Queen 

Mary,  509 ;  his  object,  510. 

Pisa,  Council  of,  476 ;  it  tries  and  con- 
demns two  popes,  528,  529 ;  why  it  was 
ecumenical,  529 ;  it  elects  a  new  pope, 
530;  its  decrees  are  approved  by  hira, 
530,  662. 

Pius  IV.,  Pope,  his  profession  of  faith,  75. 

VII.,  Pope,  condemns  Bible  societies, 

78;  restores  the  Jesuits,  104;  condemns 
freemasonry,  201,  207. 

VIIL,  Pope,  condemns  Bible  socie- 
ties, 78;  also  the  publication  and  read- 
ing of  the  Scriptures,  205. 

IX.,  Pope,  24-26;    he  hates  popular 

government,  28,  34,  40 ;  he  wars  upon 
progress,  41,  42,  49,  52,  54,  90 ;  he  hopes 
for  dominion  in  the  United  States,  35, 
51,  111,  117;  his  profession  of  faith,  75; 
his  reliance  npon  the  Jesuits,  109 ;  his 
address  to  some  American  papists  in 
Rome,  110;  his  brief  to  Maximilian 
against  religions  freedom  in  Mexico, 
119;  he  claims  to  be  sole  guardian  of 
liberty,  127 ;  and  to  be  a  domestic  prince 
in   every  country,  133;   and    that   the 


INDEX. 


popes  have  never  exceeded  their  power, 
ib. ;  he  derives  his  temporal  power  from 
God,  137 ;  he  claims  jurisdiction  over 
all  Protestants,  143 ;  his  Encyclical,  149, 
198;  he  justilies  the  tise  of  coercive 
power,  154;  the  nature  of  his  claim  of 
divine  power,  162,  228, 449 ;  his  claim  of 
superiority  over  the  nations,  163;  he 
asserts  his  divine  right  to  appoint  kings, 
185;  he  curses  freemasonry,  201;  he 
claims  power  to  punish  all  disobedience 
to  the  laws  of  the  Church,  ib. ;  he  as- 
serts that  it  is  sinful  to  disobey  him, 
202;  he  insists  that  all  governments 
rest  on  him  as  head  of  the  Church,  203; 
he  approves  papal  bulls  condemning 
the  publication  and  reading  of  the 
Scriptures,  205  ;  he  denounces  religious 
toleration,  208;  also  the  freedom  of 
speaking,  writing,  and  publishing,  209  ; 
his  opposition  to  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  210 ;  his  Syllabus, 
211 ;  his  civil  government  in  Rome,  231 ; 
his  intolerance  toward  Protestantism, 
234 ;  the  kind  of  government  he  desires, 
354 ;  his  reliance  upon  precedent  to  es- 
tablish his  power,  405 ;  he  desires  to 
imitate  Innocent  III.,  447. 

Pole,  Cardinal,  legate  of  the  pope  in  En- 
gland, 512;  his  interference  with  civil 
affairs,  ib. ;  was  an  Englishman,  517. 

Polycarp,  his  agreement  with  the  pope 
about  Easter,  373. 

Pontianus,  Pope,  his  forged  epistles,  380. 

Pontificate,  the,  vacant  two  years,  527. 

Pope,  first  use  of  the  word,  296. 

Popes,  the,  to  be  always  obeyed,  76 ;  in- 
dependent of  the  civil  power,  88;  su- 
perior to  all  human  governments,  ib. ; 
judges  of  individuals  and  states,  89 ; 
equal  with  Christ,  ib.;  rulers  of  the 
world,  116;  domestic  princes  in  every 
country,  132  ;  have  never  exceeded  their 
power,  133;  are  kings  over  all  nations, 
133 ;  are  never  to  be  complained  against, 
140,  369 ;  no  limitation  to  their  powers, 
148 ;  their  power  is  what  they  assert  it 
to  be,  150 ;  they  are  the  sole  teachers  of 
history,  156 ;  they  alone  define  the  ex- 
tent of  their  own  infallibility,  157 ;  their 
primacy  is  a  personal  privilege,  153; 
they  are  equal  with  God,  167,  369,  601, 
602;  they  choose  kings  by  divine  right, 
184 ;  they  possess  the  rights  of  God, 
185,  403 ;  disobedience  to  them  is  sin, 
202;  they  mutilate  books  with  impuni- 


ty, 241 ;  rival  popes  elected  at  Rome, 
275 ;  each  condemns  the  other,  276 ; 
they  never  produced  the  pretended 
grant  of  Pepin,  331 ;  they  are  support- 
ers of  treason,  338  ;  the  effect  of  their 
example  in  the  United  States,  339 ; 
Rome  not  given  them  by  Pepin,  ib.; 
they  forge  letters  from  heaven,  342; 
two  elected  at  same  time,  363 ;  they 
dictate  kings,  366  ;  their  claim  of  uni- 
versal dominion,  368,  559 ;  their  as- 
sumed right  to  create  emperors,  397 ; 
have  been  appointed  by  emperors,  401 ; 
whatever  they  command  is  right,  407 ; 
they  dispense  the  obligation  of  oaths, 
460,  468 ;  their  enormities  in  England, 
465 ;  condemned  and  dei)osed  by  coun- 
cils, 476 ;  their  claim  of  coercive  power, 
487,  488,  523 ;  the  difficulties  in  tracing 
their  succession,  536-538 ;  when  there 
are  two  or  more,  either  may  be  believed 
in,  539;  their  power  to  dispense  with 
law,  559 ;  they  require  implicit  obedi- 
ence, 565 ;  they  can  dispose  of  king- 
doms, 596  ;  the  former  election  of,  670. 

Popular  rights,  struggle  for,  in  England, 
469. 

Power,  absolute,  justified  by  precedent, 
123,125. 

Prfemunire,  statute  of,  471, 474. 

Prerogatives,  temporal,  first  acquired  by 
the  popes,  382. 

Priests,  in  the  United  States,  educated  in 
Europe,  23,  93;  their  efforts  to  stir  up 
disloyalty,  181 ;  they  do  not  forfeit  their 
power  by  crime,  115, 193,  223 ;  they  claim 
to  be  above  all  human  laws,  383  ;  they 
must  not  be  accused,  384. 

Primacy  of  the  popes  a  personal  privi- 
lege, 153. 

Princes,  legitimate,  always  to  be  obeyed, 
219. 

Priscillian  put  to  death  by  Leo  I.,  270. 

Progress  condemned  by  Pius  IX.,  199, 
204,  220. 

Propaganda,  Society  of,  founded,  686. 

Protestant  churches  and  schools  in  Italy, 
26. 

and  Roman  Catholic  statistics  com- 
pared, 21. 

religion,  what  it  means,  57. 

system  of  government,  53  ;  repudi- 
ated by  papists,  172.     ■ 

Protestantism,  on  trial  in  the  United 
States,  54;  what  it  means,  55;  the  fruit 
of  the  Reformation,  58 ;  the  war  upon 


t 


748 


INDEX. 


it,  70,  73 ;  it  is  denounced  as  intolerant 
and  persecuting,  79 ;  declared  to  be  no 
religion,  84;  assailed  as  infidelity,  74, 
114;  its  birth  in  England,  472;  its 
growth,  504. 

Protestants  denied  the  right  to  worship 
in  Rome  under  papal  dominion,  234. 

Provisors,  statute  of,  471,  474. 

Pseudo-Isidorian  decrees,  373. 

Puritans  in  England,  519. 

Pusey,  Dr.,  on  the  canons  of  Nice,  318. 

R. 

Ravenna  given  by  Pepin  to  the  pope,  330. 

Raymond,  Count  of  Toulouse,  486. 

Reason,  right  to,  denied,  143. 

Rebellion  in  the  United  States,  papal 
hopes  excited  by  it,  117. 

Reformation  in  England  begun  by  Wyc- 
liflfe,  473, 

in  Germany,  495. 

Reform,  civil,  impossible  in  papal  Rome, 
231. 

Reichel  on  forged  donation  of  Coustan- 
tine,  253. 

Relics,  362. 

Religious  liberty  defined  by  American 
prelates,  47. 

war,  dangers  of,  72. 

Revolution,  papal  precedent  for,  327. 

Revolutionary  governments  illegitimate, 
590. 

Richard  IT.,  King  of  England,  472. 

Richelieu  and  the  Protestants,  689. 

Ridley  burned,  513. 

Rival  popes  curse  each  other,  475. 

Rogers,  John,  his  martyrdom,  513. 

Roman  Catholics  in  the  United  States, 
20 ;  how  educated,  49 ;  fully  protected, 
71 ;  their  intolerance  admitted,  80. 

Rome,  the  final  judge  in  all  things,  184 ; 
its  condition  at  the  beginning  of  the 
ninth  century,  359;  the  extent  of  cor- 
ruption there,  371,  541 ;  its  Church  en- 
slaved, 398 ;  its  civil  government  under 
Pins  IX.,  231. 

Royalties  of  St.  Peter  to  be  preserved,  42. 


Sabellians  an  early  sect,  296. 

Saints  canonized  by  Pius  IX.,  40 ;  why  it 

was  done,  369. 
Sanction,  Pragmatic,  661. 
Sarpi,  Paul,  on  papal  ambition,  239;  on 

mutilation  of  books  at  Rome,  241. 
Sayouarola,  525. 


Sawtre,  William,  burned  to  death,  473. 

Saxon  and  Salique  emperors  of  Germany, 
399. 

Saxons  and  Britons,  war  between  them, 
428. 

Saxons,  belong  to  Teutonic  stock,  437 ; 
the  principles  carried  by  them  to  En- 
gland, 438. 

Schism,  the  forty  years',  536;  healed  at 
last,  554. 

Schisms,  their  causes,  280. 

Schools,  religious  instruction  in,  188. 

Segur,  Mgr.,  his  assault  on  Protestantism 
in  France,  73;  condemns  freedom  of 
thought,  85;  his  opinicm  on  divine  right 
of  popes  and  kings,  184. 

Sergius,  Pope,  dictates  who  shall  be  king 
of  Brittany,  366. 

Severus,  Alexander,  Emperor,  his  decis- 
ion, 246. 

Sigismund,  Emperor,  544. 

Silverius,  Pope,  buys  the  pontificate,  276. 

Simplicius,  Pope,  and  the  Emperor  Zeno, 
272 ;  his  vacillation,  ib. 

Siricius,  Pope,  372,  375. 

Sixtus  I.,  Pope,  his  forged  epistles,  376. 

II.,  Pope,  his  forged  epistles,  384. 

v..  Pope,  makes  the  Inquisition  holy, 

691. 

Socrates,  on  the  baptism  of  Constantine, 
286;  on  the  Arian  controversy,  292,  295 ; 
on  the  Council  of  Nice,  297;  on  the 
pope's  legates  there,  299 ;  on  approval 
of  its  decrees  by  Constantine,  309. 

Soissons,  Battle  of,  321. 

Sozomen,  on  the  baptism  of  Constantine, 
286 ;  on  the  Arian  controversy,  292,  295 ; 
on  the  Council  of  Nice,  297;  on  the 
pope's  legates  there,  299 ;  on  approval 
of  its  decrees  by  Constantine,  309. 

Spalding,  Archbishop,  recognizes  the  re- 
sults of  the  Reformation,  59. 

Spanish  Inquisition  justified,  81. 

Spires,  Diet  of,  56. 

Spiritual  order  above  the  temporal,  165. 

State,  defied,  36;  subordinated  to  the 
Church,  165 ;  must  be  held  in  obedience, 
167,  451,  452,  610. 

Statistics,  Protestant  and  papal,  in  the 
United  States,  21. 

Stephen  I.,  Pope,  282;  was  a  subject  of 
the  empire,  326 ;  forgeries  in  his  name, 
384. 

III.,  Pope,  his  duplicity  and  treason, 

329,  334 ;  invokes  the  aid  of  Pepin,  341 ; 
forges  letter  from  the  Apostle  Peter, 


INDEX. 


749 


•  342 ;  justified  by  St.  Thomas  aui  Bel- 
larmine,  596. 

Stephen  VII.,  Pope,  poisons  his  predeces- 
sor, 3T0;  exhumes  and  mutilates  the 
body  of  Pope  Formosus,  after  a  mock 
trial,  3T1. 

IX.,  Pope,  401. 

Syllabus,  the,  of  Pius  IX.,  subordinates 
the  State  to  the  Church,  42 ;  an  analysis 
of  it,  211 ;  condemns  freedom  of  relig- 
ion, 214 ;  treats  Protestant  faith  as  no 
religion,  215  ;  Church  independent  of 
State,  lb.;  the  popes  have  never  ex- 
ceeded their  authority,  ib. ;  never  been 
guilty  of  usurpation,  ib. ;  the  Church 
may  resort  to  force,  216;  ecclesiastics 
do  not  derive  any  authority  from  the 
State,  ib. ;  they  should  not  be  tried  by 
the  civil  courts,  ib. ;  all  rights  derived 
from  the  Church,  218 ;  Church  and  State 
.  must  be  united,  ib. ;  legitimate  princes 
must  always  be  obeyed,  219;  Roman 
Catholic  religion  must  be  established 
by  law,  220 ;  religious  toleration  an  er- 
ror, ib. ;  modern  progress  and  civiliza- 
tion condemned,  ib.;  form  of,  see  Ap- 
pendix D. 

T. 

Tablet,  New  York,  claims  exemption  of 
priests  from  civil  law,  216  ;  the  Church 
is  the  supreme  judge,  217. 

Telesphorus,  Pope,  epistles  forged  in  his 
name,  3T6. 

Temporal  power,  necessary  to  the  pope, 
141 ;  none  was  conferred  on  Peter,  228 ; 
inquiry  into  its  origin,  236 ;  none  con- 
ferred on  any  of  the  apostles,  261,  35T ; 
none  possessed  by  the  popes  in  the 
time  of  Constantine,  264 ;  it  is  whatever 
the  pope  claims,  148, 150 ;  none  possess- 
ed in  the  time  of  Aurelian,  247 ;  motives 
for  its  acquisition,  339 ;  absolute,  claim- 
ed by  Gregory  VII.,  404,  405. 

Tertullian,  a  Montanist,  373 ;  excommu- 
nicated, 374 ;  on  Christianity  in  Britain, 
425. 

Teutonic  and  Latin  ideas,  conflict  be- 
tween them,  26. 

Theodoret,  on  the  baptism  of  Constan- 
tine, 286;  on  the  Council  of  Nice,  297; 
on  the  pope's  legates  there,  299;  on  ap- 
proval of  the  decrees  by  Constantine, 
309 ;  on  the  number  of  Nicene  canons, 
316. 

Theodoric,  King,  decides  who  shall  be 
pope,  274. 


Theodosius,  laws  of,  696. 

Thomas,  St.,  on  direct  power  over  tem- 
porals, 595. 

Tillemont,  on  the  Council  of  Nice,  302 ; 
on  the  eighteenth  canon,  311 ;  on  the 
number  of  canons,  317. 

Toleration  condemned  by  Pius  IX.,  119. 

Tracts,  papal,  character  of  in  the  United 
States,  87. 

Trent,  Council  of,  gave  priests  power  to 
absolve  sins,  191 ;  to  commit  crime  with 
impunity,  115,  193,  223 ;  its  action  con- 
trolled mainly  by  Italian  bishops,  666. 

Tyudal,  his  New  Testament  prohibited 
in  England  by  Henry  VIIL,  500. 

U. 

Ultramontanism  the  same  everywhere, 
176, 179, 162. 

Unam  Sanctam,  bull  of  Boniface  VIII., 
222,  224,  421,  527,  708,  709. 

Unigenitus,  bull  of  Clement  XI.,  451. 

United  States  a  Protestant  country,  55. 

Urban  I.,  Pope,  his  forged  epistles,  379. 

II.,  Pope,  excites  a  crusade,  410. 

IV.,  Pope,  dispenses  oath  of  the  King 

of  England,  468. 

v..  Pope,  475, 528  ;  he  decrees  against 

keeping  faith  with  heretics,  560. 

VIII.,  Pope,  persecutes   Galileo,  92, 

686,  688 ;  collects  a  debt  by  excommuni- 
cation, 690. 

V. 

Valentine,  Pope,  364. 

Valentinians,  an  early  sect,  296. 

Vaudois,  crusade  against  them,  416 ;  their 
massacre,  418 ;  war  upon  them  by  Greg- 
ory XI.,  475 ;  measures  fi)r  their  extir- 
pation, 486. 

Victor  I.,  Pope,  stirs  up  controversy  about 
Easter,  282,  373 ;  is  a  Montanist,  373 ; 
introduces  excommunication,  374;  be- 
gins war  on  Eastern  Christians,  ib.; 
his  forged  epistles,  377 ;  his  example, 
388. 

II.,  Pope,  401. 

IV.,  Anti-pope,  413;  recognized  by 

several  nations,  414. 

Vienne,  Council  of,  639. 

Vigilius,  Pope,  made  so  by  Belisanus, 
277 ;  deposes  and  murders  Pope  Silve- 
rius,  ib. ;  recognized  as  lawful  pope,  ib. ; 
calls  the  Second  Council  of  Constan- 
tinople, ib.;  his  contest  with  Justinian, 
ib. 


150 


INDEX. 


Villain,  John,  on  the  character  and  opin- 
ions of  Boniface  VIIL,  223. 
Virginia,  Colony  of,  674. 

W. 

Waldeuses,  416 ;  war  upon  them  by  Inno- 
cent III.,  41 S,  435;  excommunicated, 
486. 

Wallenstein,  688. 

Washington,  his  farewell  address,  180. 

Weuiuger,  a  Jesuit,  assails  Protestant- 
ism as  infidelity  and  heathenism,  114; 
threatens  a  resort  to  the  Inquisition, 
117 ;  his  perversions  of  history,  121,  290 ; 
his  falsehoods  about  the  Council  of 
Nice,  298  ;  and  the  number  of  the  pope's 
legates,  300;  and  about  instructions 
from  Rome,  304;  and  about  the  num- 
ber of  canons,  310,  315 ;  his  argument, 
642 ;  his  misquotation,  667. 

Western  and  Latin  Church,  635. 

William  the  Conqueror,  439 ;  his  claim  to 


the  English  crown,  440 ;  it  was  given  to 
him  by  the  pope,  441 ;  his  efforts  to  de- 
stroy the  Saxons;  442. 

World,  The  Catholic,  makes  the  Church 
accredit  herself  above  the  State,  450, 

Wycliffe,  John,  472;  attacks  the  Ultra- 
montanes,  475 ;  begins  the  Reformation, 
486. 

Z, 

Zachary,  Pope,  322;  his  intrigues  with 
Pepin,  323;  absolves  the  French  from 
their  allegiance,  324;  his  alliance  of, 
with  Pepin,  325 ;  the  fruits  of  it,  326. 

Zelotes,  Simon,  supposed  to  have  carried 
Christianity  to  Britain,  425. 

Zeno,  Emperor,  and  Pope  Felix  II.,  271 ; 
and  Pope  Simplicius,  272. 

Zephyrinus,  Pope,  accused  of  Montanism, 
374;  epistles  forged  in  his  name,  377. 

Zisca,  John,  stirs  up  the  Bohemians,  549. 

Zosimus,  Pope,  bis  forgery  of  canons  of 
the  Council  of  Nice,  317. 


myi'^ 


Cf    THE 


UN 


ERSIT¥ 


THE   END. 


STANDARD  HISTORICAL  WORKS, 

Published  by  HARPER  &  BROTHERS,  New  York. 


B^^  Habpek  &  Bkotuers  will  send  any  of  the  following  books  by  mail  or  express, 

postage  or  freight  prepaid,  to  any  part  of  the  United  States  or  Canada,  on  receipt 

of  the  price. 
iW  For  a  f  till  list  of  works  of  a  historical  character,  published  by  Haepee  &  Beoth- 

EES,  see  Harpeb's  New  ani>  Enlarged  Catalogue,  300  pp.  Svo,  with  a  Complete 

Analytical  Indes,  sent  by  mail  on  receipt  of  Ten  Cents. 


ALISON'S  HISTORY  OF  EUROPE.  History  of  Europe.  First  Series:  from  the 
Commencement  of  the  French  Revohition,  in  1789,  to  the  Restoration  of  the 
Bourbons  in  1815.  In  addition  to  the  Notes  on  Chapter  LXXVI.,  which  correct 
the  errors  of  the  original  work  concerning  the  United  States,  a  copious  Analyt- 
ical Index  has  been  appended  to  this  American  Edition.  Second  Series:  from 
the  Fall  of  Napoleon,  m  1815,  to  the  Accession  of  Louis  Napoleon,  in  1852.  By- 
Sir  AuouiBALD  Alison.  8  vols.,  8vo,  Cloth,  $16  00 ;  Sheep,  $20  00 ;  Half  Calf, 
$34  00. 

ALISON'S  LIFE  OF  MARLBOROUGH.  Military  Life  of  John,  Duke  of  Marlbor- 
ough.   With  Maps.    By  Sir  Archibald  Alison.    12mo,  Cloth,  $1  75. 

ABBOTT'S  FREDERICK  THE  GREAT.  The  History  of  Frederick  the  Second, 
called  Frederick  the  Great.  By  Joun  S.  C.  Abbott.  Elegantly  Illustrated. 
.  8vo,  Cloth,  $5  00  ;  Half  Calf,  $7  25. 

ABBOTT'S  FRENCH  REVOLUTION.  The  French  Revolution  of  1789,  as  viewed 
in  the  Light  of  Republican  Institutions.  By  John  S.  C.  Abbott.  100  Illustra- 
tions.   8vo,  Cloth,  $5  00 ;  Sheep,  $5  50 ;  Half  Calf,  $7  25. 

ABBOTT'S  NAPOLEON  BONAPARTE.  The  History  of  Napoleon  Bonaparte. 
By  John  S.  C.  Abbott.  With  Maps,  Illustrations,  and  Portraits  on  Steel.  2  vols., 
8vo,  Cloth,  $10  00 ;  Sheep,  $11  00;  Half  Calf,  $14  50. 

ABBOTT'S  NAPOLEON  AT  ST.  HELENA.  Napoleon  at  St.  Helena ;  or,  Interest- 
ing Anecdotes  and  Remarkable  Conversations  of  the  Emperor  during  the  Five 
and  a  Half  Years  of  his  Captivity.  Collected  from  the  Memorials  of  Las  Casas, 
O'Meara,  Montholon,  Antommarchi,  and  others.  By  John  S.C.Abbott.  Illus- 
trations.   8vo,  Cloth,  $5  00 ;  Sheep,  $5  50 ;  Half  Calf,  $7  25. 

BACON'S  GENESIS  OP  THE  NEW  ENGLAND  CHURCHES.  The  Genesis  of 
the  New  England  Churches.  By  the  Rev.  Leonard  Bacon,  D.D.  With  Illus- 
trations.   Crown  8vo,  Cloth,  $2  50. 

BRODHEAD'S  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK,  History  of  the  State  of  New  York. 
By  John  Romeyn  Beodhead.  2  vols,  published.  Vol.  I.,  1609-1664 ;  Vol.  II., 
1664-1691.    8vo,  Cloth,  $3  00  each. 

CARLYLE'S  OLIVER  CROMWELL.  Letters  and  Speeches  of  Oliver  Cromwell, 
including  the  Supplement  to  the  First  Edition.  With  Elucidations.  By  Thomas 
Caklyle.    2  vols.,  12mo,  Cloth,  $3  50 ;  Sheep,  $4  30 ;  Half  Calf,  $7  00. 

CARLYLE'S  FREDERICK  THE  GREAT.  History  of  Friedrich  IL,  called  Fred- 
erick the  Great.  By  Thomas  Carlyle.  Portraits,  Maps,  Plans,  &c.  6  vols., 
12mo,  Cloth,  $12  00 ;  Sheep,  $14  40 ;  Half  Calf,  $22  50. 

CARLYLE'S  FRENCH  REVOLUTION.  History  of  the  French  Revolution.  By 
Thomas  Carlyle.    2  vols.,  12mo,  Cloth,  $3  50 ;  Sheep,  $4  30 ;  Half  Calf,  $7  00. 

DRAPER'S  INTELLECTUAL  DEVELOPMENT  OF  EUROPE.  A  History  of  the 
Intellectual  Development  of  Europe.  By  John  W.  Drapke,  M.D.,  LL.D.  2  vols., 
12mo,  Cloth,  $3  00 ;  Half  Calf,  $6  50. 

DRAPER'S  AMERICAN  CIVIL  WAR.  History  of  the  American  Civil  War.  By 
John  W.  Draper,  M.D.,  LL.D.  In  Three  Vols.  Cloth,  Beveled  Edges,  $10  50; 
Sheep,  $12  00  ;  Half  Calf,  $17  25. 

GIBBON'S  ROME.  History  of  the  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire,  By 
Edward  Gimuon.  With  Notes,  by  Rev.  H.  H.  Milman  and  M.  GmzoT.  To  which 
is  added  a  complete  Index  of  the  whole  Work.  6  vols.,  12mo,  Cloth,  $6  00 ;  Sheep, 
$8  40;  Half  Calf,  $16  50. 


2  Harper  6^  Brothers'  Standard  Historical  Works. 

GIESELER'S  ECCLESIASTICAL  HISTORY.  A  Text-Book  of  Church  History.  By 
Dr.  JouN  C.  L.  GiESELKB.  Translated  from  the  Fourth  Revised  German  Edition. 
By  Samuel  Davidson,  LL.D.,  and  Rev.  John  Winstani.ey  Hull,  M.A.  A  new 
American  Edition,  Revised  and  Edited  by  Rev.  Henry  B.  Smith,  D.D.,  Professor 
in  the  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York.  Four  Volumes,  8vo,  Ready.  (Vol. 
V.  in  Preparation.)    Price  per  volume,  Cloth,  $2  25 ;  Sheep,  $2  75 ;  Half  Calf,  $4  50. 

GREEN'S  SHORT  HISTORY  OF  THE  ENGLISH  PEOPLE.  A  Short  History  of 
the  English  People.  By  J.  R.  Green,  M.A.,  Examiner  in  the  School  of  Modern 
History,  Oxford.    With  Tables  and  Colored  Maps.    8vo,  Cloth,  $1  75. 

GROTE'S  HISTORY  OF  GREECE.  A  History  of  Greece,  from  the  Earliest  Period 
to  the  Close  of  the  Generation  Contemporary  with  Alexander  the  Great.  By 
George  Geotb.    12  vols.,  12mo,  Cloth,  $18  00  ;  Sheep,  $22  80 ;  Half  Calf,  $39  00. 

HALLAM'S  WORKS: 

THE  MIDDLE  AGES.  View  of  the  State  of  Europe  during  the  Middle  Ages. 
By  Heney  Hallam,  LL.D.,  F.R.A.S.    8vo,  Cloth,  $2  00 ;  Sheep,  $2  50. 

CONSTITUTIONAL  HISTORY  OF  ENGLAND.  The  Constitutional  History 
of  England,  from  the  Accession  of  Henry  VII.  to  the  Death  of  George  11.  By 
Henry  Hallam,  LL.D.,  F.R.  A.S.    Svo,  Cloth,  $2  00 ;  Sheep,  $2  50. 

LITERATURE  OF  EUROPE.  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  Europe,  in 
the  Fifteenth,  Sixteenth,  and  Seventeenth  Centuries.  By  Henry  Hallam, 
LL.D.,  F.R.A.S.    2  vols.,  Svo,  Cloth,  $4  00 ;  Sheep,  $5  00. 

STUDENT'S  MIDDLE  AGES.  View  of  the  State  of  Euroi>e  during  the  Middle 
Ages.  By  Heney  Hallam,  LL.D.,  F.R.A.S.  Incorporating  in  the  Text  the 
Author's  Latest  Researches,  with  Additions  from  Recent  Writers,  and  Adapt- 
ed to  the  Use  of  Students.  Edited  by  William  Smith,  D.C.L.,LL.D.  12mo, 
Cloth,  $2  00. 

STUDENT'S  CONSTITUTIONAL  HISTORY.  The  Constitutional  History  of 
England,  from  the  Accession  of  Henry  VII.  to  the  Death  of  George  II.  By 
Henry  Hallam,  LL.D.,  F.R.A.S.  Incorporating  the  Author's  Latest  Addi- 
tions and  Corrections,  and  Adapted  to  the  Use  of  Students.  Edited  by  Wil- 
liam Smith,  D.C.L.,  LL.D.    12mo,  Cloth,  $2  00. 

HAYDN'S  DICTIONARY  OF  DATES.  Haydn's  Dictionary  of  Dates,  relating  to 
all  Ages  and  Nations.  For  Universal  Reference.  Edited  by  Benjamin  Vin- 
cent, Assistant  Secretary  and  Keeper  of  the  Library  of  the  Royal  Institution  of 
Great  Britain  ;  and  Revised  for  the  Use  of  American  Readers.  Svo,  Cloth,  $5  00  ; 
Sheep,  $6  00 ;  Half  Calf,  $7  25. 

HELPS'S  SPANISH  CONQUEST.  The  Spanish  Conquest  in  America,  and  its  Rela- 
tion to  the  History  of  Slavery,  and  to  the  Government  of  Colonies.  By  Arthur 
Helps.    4  vols.,  large  12mo,  Cloth,  $1  50  each  ;  Half  Calf,  $3  25  each. 

HILDRETH'S  HISTORY  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES.  The  History  of  the  United 
States.  First  Series:  From  the  First  Settlement  of  the  Country  to  the  Adop- 
tion of  the  Federal  Constitution.  Second  Series:  From  the  Ado))tion  of  the 
Federal  Constitution  to  the  End  of  the  Sixteenth  Congress.  By  Richard 
HiLDRETH.    6  vols.,  8vo,  Cloth,  $18  00 ;  Sheep,  $21  00 ;  Half  Calf,  $31  50. 

HUME'S  HISTORY  OF  ENGLAND.  History  of  England,  from  the  Invasion  of 
Julius  Caesar  to  the  Abdication  of  James  II.,  1688.  By  David  Hume.  With  the 
Author's  Last  Corrections  and  Improvements.  To  which  is  prefixed  a  short 
Account  of  his  Life,  written  by  himself.  G  vols.,  12mo,  Cloth,  $6  00;  Sheep, 
$8  40;  Half  Calf,  $16  50. 

KINGLAKE'S  CRIMEAN  WAR.  The  Invasion  of  the  Crimea:  its  Origin,  and  an 
Account  of  its  Progress  down  to  the  Death  of  Lord  Raglan.  By  Alexander 
William  Kinqlake.  With  Maps  and  Plans.  Three  Volumes  now  ready.  12rao, 
Cloth,  $2  00  per  vol. ;  Half  Calf,  $3  75  per  vol. 

LEWIS'S  HISTORY  OP  GERMANY.  A  History  of  Germany,  from  the  Earliest 
Times.  Founded  on  Dr.  David  Mijlleb's  "History  of  the  German  People." 
By  Charlton  T.  Lewis.    With  Illustrations.    Crown  8vo,  Cloth,  $2  50. 

MACAULAY'S  HISTORY  OF  ENGLAND.  The  History  of  England  from  the  Acces- 
sion of  James  II.  By  Lord  Mac aul ay.  In  Five  Volumes.— A  handsome  Octavo 
Library  Edition,  complete.  With  elaborate  Index,  of  indispensable  value  to  a 
Library  Edition.  Cloth,  $10  00;  Sheep,  $12  50;  Half  Calf,  $21  25.— A  popular 
Duodecimo  Edition,  complete.  ^Vith  elaborate  Index.  Cloth,  $5  00 ;  Sheep, 
$7  00;  Half  Calf,  $13  76. 


«x.  OTI  THE  LAST  DATE 
THIS  BOOK  M^=D  BELOW 

S;^  OF  25  CENTS 

WIL^  ^^  t  ON  THE  DATE  ^^^J^'hE  FOURTH 

D;vY  and  to  9    .  ___===-= 

OVERDUE. 


o 


yC  'f3980 


